Skip to main content

Full text of "The trial of Sir Roger Casement"

See other formats


I 



Iflotable 



Sir Roger Casement 



NOTABLE TRIALS SERIES. 

Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan Smith, 

Advocate. 
Dr. Pritchard. Edited by William Roughead. 

The Statmtons. Edited by J. B. Allay, Barrister- 
at-Law. 

Franz Muller. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
The Annesley Case* Edited by Andrew Lang. 
Lord Lovat. Edited by David N. Mackay. 
Captain Porteous. Edited by William Roughead. 
William Palmer. Edited by Geo. H. Knott, 

Barrister-at-Law. 

Mrs. Maybrick. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
Dr. Lamson. Edited by H. L. Adam. 
Mary Blandy. Edited by William Roughead. 
City of Glasgow Bank Directors. Edited by 

William Wallace, Advocate. 
Deacon Brodie. Edited by William Roughead. 
James Stewart. Edited by David N. Mackay. 
A. J. Monson. Edited by J. W. More, Advocate. 
Oscar Slater. Edited by William Roughead. 
Eugene Marie Chantrelle. Edited by A. Duncan 

Smith, Advocate. 
The Douglas Cause. Edited by A. Francis 

Steuart, Advocate. 

Mrs. M'Lachlan Edited by William Roughead. 
Eugene Aram. Edited by Eric Watson, 

Barrister-at-Law. 

J. A. Dickman. Edited by S. O. Rowan- 
Hamilton, Barrister-at-Law. 
The Seddons. Edited by Filson Young. 



IN PREPARATION. 
The Wainwrights. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
H. H. Crippen. Edited by Filson Young. 
Thurtell and Hunt. Edited by Eric Watson. 

Particulars may be had from the Publishers. 




(From a photograph taken in Berlin.) 

Roger Casement. 



Trial of 

Sir Roger Casement 



EDITED BY 

George H. Knott, M.A.(Edin.) 

OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT LAW 




TORONTO 
CANADA LAW BOOK COMPANY, LIMITED 



PRINTED BY 

WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY 

GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 

1917 




TO 

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE VISCOUNT READING 

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND 

WHO PRESIDED AT THE TRIAL OF ROGER CASEMENT 

FOR HIGH TREASON 

AND TO 

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DARLING 

WHO PRESIDED AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL 
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 

THIS BOOK IS 

BY THEIR -KIND PERMISSION 
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 

BY 

.. 

THE EDITOR 



PEEFACE. 

THIS report of the trial of Roger Casement for high treason, and of the 
appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, is based on the transcript of the 
notes taken by the Government shorthand writers each day of the 
proceedings. It is a verbatim report, except for such parts of it as are 
of a more or less formal character, where the direct narrative form is 
followed instead of that of question and answer. The report has also had 
the additional advantage of being read by Viscount Reading, the Lord 
Chief Justice, who presided at the trial, and by his colleagues, Mr. Justice 
Avory and Mr. Justice Horridge. Mr. Justice Darling, who presided at 
the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal, has also read the report 
of the judgment of that Court which was delivered by him. The Attorney- 
General, Sir Frederick Smith, has revised the report of his speeches. For 
the photograph of Roger Casement which appears as the frontispiece of 
this book the Editor is indebted to Mr. Michael Francis Doyle, of the 
American Bar, who assisted the defence throughout the proceedings, both 
at the trial and in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The interest of this 
photograph is that it was taken in Germany at the time when Casement 
was engaged in the mission which ultimately led him to trial and the 
scaffold. 

Numerous documents and photographs will be found throughout the 
work and in the Appendices, relating to the persons who were engaged in 
the proceedings, or to things which were produced as evidence at the trial. 
Material of a personal nature relative to Casement which is available at 
present to a would-be biographer is very scanty. Hardly anything has 
been made public except the formal record of his career in the service of 
the British Government, which was set out in the opening speech of the 
Attorney- General. Perhaps no one so notorious was ever so little known 
in his private character. Amongst the documents in the Appendices to 
which attention may be drawn are the petitions which were presented by 
numerous persons, animated by various motives, for the commutation of 
the sentence. For these the Editor is indebted to Clement Shorter, Esq. 

It remains only for the Editor to express his thanks to Viscount 
Reading, Lord Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Darling, who have accepted 
the joint dedication to them of this record of a famous historic trial in 
which they respectively played such distinguished parts. 

G. H. K. 
THE LIBRARY, 

MIDDLE TEMPLE, 

23rd June, 1917. 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction, - 
Table of Dates, 
L THE TRIAL, 



PAGE 

xiii 
xl 

1 



Opening Speech for the Prosecution, 



The Attorney-General, 



Evidence for the Prosecution. 



John Cronin, 16 

Daniel O'Brien, 22 

John Robinson, 25 

William Egan, - 29 

Michael O'Connor, 32 

Michael Moore, - - 33 

John Neill, - 35 

Michael Hussey, - - 43 

John McCarthy, - - 44 

Mary Gorman, - - 46 

Thomas John Hearn, 47 

Bernard Riley, 52 

Martin Collins, - - 54 

Frederick Ambrose Britten, - - 55 

Motion to Quash Indictment, 



Robert William Larke, 57 

James Butler, - 57 

Frederick Whittaker, 58 

Thomas Bracken, - 58 

Joseph Sandercock, - 59 

Sydney Ray Waghorn, - 59 

John Dempsey, ... 60 

Colonel Nicholas T. Belaiew, 61 
Lieut. -Col. Philip James Gordon, - 62 

Maurice Moriarty, 64 

George Carter, - 64 

Daniel O'Donnell, - 64 

Edward Parker, ... 64 

William Egan (recalled), 65 

- 67 



Judgments on Motion to Quash Indictment. 



The Lord Chief Justice, 
Mr. Justice Avory, - 
Mr. Justice Horridge, 



Statement by the Prisoner, 



124 
130 
133 

133 



Closing Speeches for the Prisoner. 



Mr. Serjeant Sullivan, 
Mr. Artemus Jones, 



135 
156 



CONTENTS. 

Closing Speech for the Grown. 

PAGE 

The Attorney-General, 163 



The Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up, 178 

Verdict, - ... 197 

Statement by the Prisoner, - 197 

Sentence, 205 



II. THE APPEAL, 207 

Speech by Mr. Serjeant Sullivan, 208 



Judgment in Appeal Proceedings. 
Mr. Justice Darling, 280 

APPENDICES 

I. Print of Productions, .... 289 

II. Petitions presented for commutation of sentence, - .... 298 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Roger Casement, Frontispiece. 

The Lord Chief Justice of England, Viscount Reading, - - facing page 2 

Railway Ticket from Berlin, ,, 14 

Boat found by M'Carthy, of Curraghane, ... ,,44 

Part of the Diary (page 1), - ,,48 

Part of the Secret Code, ,, 54 

Mr. Michael Francis Doyle, - ,,66 

Part of the Diary (page 2), - ,,176 

Writing on Back of the Code, ,, 192 

Mr. Justice Darling, - ,,208 



SIR ROGER CASEMENT. 



INTRODUCTION. 

IN the latter part of the month, of April, 1916, the papers contained the 
news that Sir Roger David Casement had been arrested by the Irish police 
on the Kerry coast near Tralee Bay, where he had landed with several 
companions, in circumstances indicating an attempt to run men, arms, and 
ammunition with the intention of raising rebellion in Ireland. Casement 
had been employed in the Consular Service for twenty-one years, and in 
1913 he had retired on a pension. In January, 1911, he had been 
knighted, and during the years 1909 to 1912, while Consul-General at Riode 
Janeiro, he had been employed in making inquiries into what were known 
as the Putumayo atrocities, and he was in consequence very conspicuous 
in the public view. During all these years nothing was known of him to 
suggest that he was connected with any of the popular movements in 
Ireland. In the latter part of 1914 and the early part of 1915 Casement 
was reported to be moving about freely and publicly in Germany, and 
appearing to be treated by the German Government as a very privileged 
person. He was reported, too, to have been amongst the Irish prisoners 
in the camps, and as having made speeches to them. If the British 
Government knew how Casement happened to be in Germany, no disclosure 
was made, nor has at any time been made, public. The Government may 
not have received accurate information as to Casement's proceedings in 
the German camps until, in February, 1916, eome of the Irish prisoners 
were exchanged, and came home, and their narratives then became avail- 
able for whatever subsequent events might happen. In view of the 
events which did follow, especially the trial for treason which this book 
records, the remark may be made that it was with singular indifference 
to the interests of Sir Roger Casement that the German authorities allowed 
the exchange of the very prisoners who could tell the whole story of the 
happenings in Germany. 

For the time being, however, it was sufficiently startling to hear that 
a British subject, and a former official of the Government, could be engaged 
in an enterprise, whatever it might be, which bore on its face the ugly 
look of treachery and treason. Had the fulsome letter which Casement 
wrote to Sir Edward Grey acknowledging the honour of his knighthood 
been known at the time of his German enterprise, it would have increased 



Sir Roger Casement. 



the anger and contempt felt for him, though it would certainly not have 
lessened the mystification of his proceedings. 

Such was the person who was arrested in Ireland on the 21st of April, 
1916, and such was the nature of the interest which the public took in 
him. This interest was immensely stimulated, moreover, by other facts 
which became known within a few days of the news of his arrest. On this 
21st of April the British sloop " Bluebell/' whilst patrolling in the neigh- 
bourhood of Tralee, sighted a suspicious ship flying the Norwegian ensign, 
and with Norwegian ensigns painted on her sides. The captain of the 
" Bluebell " had taken this vessel, which described herself as the " Aud," 
of Bergen, into charge, and had directed her to follow the "Bluebell" 
to Queenstown. Arrived off Queenstown, a dramatic scene was enacted. 
The soi-disant " Aud " stopped her engines. The " Bluebell " went back 
to her, and when about a cable's length away the crew of the " Bluebell " 
saw a small cloud of white smoke issue from the " Aud." At the game 
time two German ensigns were broken at her mast, and two boats were 
lowered. The " Bluebell " fired one round across the bows of the 
" Aud," and thereupon the boats hoisted two flags of truce, and the men 
put up their hands. They were then taken prisoners on board the 
" Bluebell," and placed under armed guard. These men were German 
bluejackets nineteen sailors and three officers. The " Aud " sank almost 
immediately, and divers found soon afterwards that she had carried a 
cargo of rifles and ammunition, the rifles being Russian rifles of the 1905 
pattern. Other even more surprising events quickly succeeded, and threw 
further light on the enterprise of Casement and the German cruiser, the 
" Aud." Casement had hardly arrived in England, where he had been 
taken in custody, when news arrived from Ireland of the Sinn Fein 
rebellion. Then the connection of things became clear. Casement 
had landed between the 20th and 21st of April ; he was evidently expected 
by conspirators who were plotting rebellion ; and they were awaiting his 
arrival with the German cruiser carrying the arms and ammunition which 
now lay at the bottom of the sea. On 24th April it was announced in 
England that " grave disturbances had broken out in Dublin." It is 
unnecessary to do more than remind the reader of the subsequent develop- 
ments, of the suppression of the rebellion, and of the executing of the 
rebels by courts-martial. Had Casement succeeded in landing himself 
and the cruiser "Aud," without being intercepted, and had he arrived 
safely amongst his fellow-conspirators with all his German honours thick 
upon him, it is probable that he would have shared their summary punish- 
ment, unless, indeed, the British Government had been of opinion that 
in any event it was desirable in the public interest that the plotting of 
the German Government with Casement and the Irish rebels should be 
xiv 



Introduction. 

made manifest by a formal investigation of the Courts in the ordinary 
course of the criminal law. 

On Casement's arrival in England he made to the metropolitan police 
the statement, " I am Sir Roger Casement, and the only person to whom 
" I have disclosed my identity is a priest in Tralee, Ireland." Afterwards, 
until the 15th May, he was kept in military custody in the Tower of 
London; but he was then removed by a warrant issued on the 13th May, 
and was brought to Bow Street Police Station to hear the charge which 
was to be preferred against him. 

The formal charge preferred was that " on the 1st day of November, 
" 1914, and on divers days thereafter, and between that day and the 21st 
"day of April, 1916, he " (with a fellow-prisoner, Daniel Julian Bailey, an 
Irish soldier who had been interned in Germany whilst Casement was 
there) " unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously did commit high treason 
" without the realm of England in contempt of our Sovereign Lord the 
' ' King and his laws, to the evil example of all others in the like case 
" offending, contrary to the duty of the allegiance of the said Sir Roger 
" Casement to our said Sovereign Lord the King, and against the form 
"of the statute in suoh case made and provided." 

The magisterial inquiry was held at Bow Street on the 15th, 16th, and 
17th days of May, 1916, and on the last of these days Casement, who 
made no statement, was committed for trial. 

It may perhaps be well to state here how and why it was that Case- 
ment, who had been arrested in Ireland, was brought for charge and trial 
to England. If the reader turns to the trial in the High Court he will 
find that, after the verdict of the jury, Casement made a long rhetorical 
statement protesting against the jurisdiction of an English Court and his 
trial by an English jury. He declared that the Court was to him, as an 
Irishman, a foreign Court, and that he had an indefeasible right, as an 
Irishman, if tried at all, to be tried in Ireland by an Irish Court and an 
Irish jury. 

Considered as a legal objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, this 
statement was quite vain and baseless ; and it could not have been with the 
belief that it had any legal validity that Casement made his objection. 
He was not simply an Irishman, but a. British subject, born and bred 
under the British law, and the only Court of law in the United Kingdom, 
or the Dominions, which had jurisdiction to try him for treason committed 
abroad was the Court of King's Bench of England. In similar circum- 
stances no British subject English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish could have 
been tried by any other Court. His fellow-countryman, Dr. Lynch, had 
been tried and convicted in 1903 by the Court of Queen's Bench for 
treason oommitted in South Africa during the Boer War. Until, with 

XV 



Sir Roger Casement. 

whatever motive, Casement himself declaimed against the jurisdiction of 
the Court, no objection was taken to it at any point of his trial ; that is 
to say, by any of the very competent counsel who defended him. So far 
from advancing any argument or plea of this kind, Serjeant Sullivan, 
Casement's leading counsel, a distinguished leader of the Irish bar, as 
well as an English counsel, began his address to the jury in these words, 
" If your lordships please, gentlemen of the jury, it is indeed a matter 
" of congratulation that such a trial as this at such a time is taking place 
" here in the capital of your nation in open Court, according to the 
' ' ordinary process of law regulating the lives of the civil subjects) of Hi 
" Majesty." This reference, we may suppose, may have meant that on 
a charge of treason committed during war, in the country of the enemy, 
it was not altogether inconceivable that Casement might have been tried, 
as the Sinn Fein rebels were tried, under military law by a court-martial 
on his arrest in Ireland. Serjeant Sullivan may also, seeing that he had 
addressed so many arguments to the Court as to the procedure in trials of 
treason, have been referring to the fact that Casement might have been 
tried by a Commission issued by the Crown constituting a special Court, 
and not by the ordinary Courts of any of the countries of the United 
Kingdom, the King's Bench in England or Ireland, or the Court of 
Justiciary in Scotland. This power of the Crown to appoint a special 
Commission for the trial of treasons committed abroad was conferred on 
the Crown by the statute 35 Henry VIII., chapter 6; and this brings 
us to this statute which made the Court of King's Bench the Court, and 
the only one of the regular Courts of law in the United Kingdom, which 
could try Casement or any other British subject for this kind of offence. 
We are not speaking now as to the point whether Casement had, in fact, 
committed any offence at all. This was the only legal point raised by 
Casement's counsel at the trial in the King's Bench and in the Court of 
Criminal Appeal. The arguments and judgments in the latter Court 
relating to the commission of the offence will be dealt with below in this 
Introduction. What we are concerned with at present is the Court 
and the mode of trial of the offence of treason when it is committed 
abroad. 

The statute 35 Henry VIII. enacts, " For as much as some doubts 
"and questions have been moved that certain kinds of treasons, mis- 
"prisions, and concealments of treasons done, perpetrated, or committed 
" out of the King's Majestie's realm of England, and other his Grace's 
" dominions, cannot by the common laws of this realm be enquired 
" of, heard, and determined within this his said realm of England, for a 
" plain remedy, order, and declaration therein to be had and made, be 
" it enacted by authority of this present Parliament, that all manner of 



Introduction. 

<( offences being already made or declared or hereafter to be made or 
"declared by any of the laws and statutes of this realm to be treasons, 
" misprisiona of treasons, or concealments of treasons done, perpetrated, or 
" committed, or hereafter to be done, perpetrated, and committed, by any 
" person or persons out of this realm of England, shall be from henceforth 
" enquired of, heard, and determined before the King's Justices of his 
" Bench for pleas to be holden before himself by good and lawful men of 
" the same shire where the said Bench shall sit and be kept, or else be 
" before such Commissioners, and in such shire of the realm as shall be 
" assigned by the King's Majestie's Commission and by good and lawful 
"men of the same shire, in like manner and form to all intents and 
1 ' purposes as if such treasons, misprisions of treasions, or concealments of 
" treasons had been done, perpetrated, and committed within the same 
"shire whereof they shall be so enquired of, heard, and determined as 
" is aforesaid." 

This statute is still in force, and determines the law as to the 
procedure of charge and trial for treasons committed out of the realm; 
that is, out of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. More- 
over, the substantive law of treason ia the same in England, Scotland, and 
Ireland. If Casement had been tried in Ireland the procedure would have 
been the same as here. The witnesses against him there would have 
been his own countrymen, as they were here. His pose as an Irish 
patriot wo'iild have led him equally to protest against any existing Irish 
Court trying him. His protest, in short, can only be understood as an 
expression of disappointment and anger that he had not been given the 
better chance of acquittal which he would, or supposed he would, have 
had if the jury had been Irish. The fact of his arrest in Ireland was 
quite irrelevant. Possibly a charge of treason founded on acts done in 
Ireland might have been formulated, but what he did there was perhaps 
dubious, whereas his acts in Germany were indubitably treasonable. 

At the magisterial inquiry the Attorney-General had intimated that 
it was very desirable that the proceedings should be pushed on as quickly 
as possible. It was undesirable, considering the situation of Irish affairs, 
and with Ireland still troubled by the effects of a revolution just suppressed, 
that the case of Casement, the principal rebel, should be protracted. There 
was much speculation as to whether, supposing Casement was convicted, 
it would be possible in the state of Irish feeling to add another Irish 
name to the long list of Irishmen who had already been executed. 

The Government therefore were quickly ready with their indictment, 

and on the 25th of May the Grand Jury of Middlesex and the county of 

London were summoned for the purpose of having the indictment presented 

to them according to the procedure under the Act of 35 Henry VIII., as 

s xvii 



Sir Roger Casement. 



above described. If tlie reader will turn to this document, as it was laid 
before the Grand Jury, it will appear to be sufficiently lengthy and 
laboured; yet it was the first exemplar of. an indictment for treason as 
simplified by the new Indictments Act, 1915, which came into operation 
in April, 1916, its laudable aim being to simplify indictments in all 
kinds of criminal cases. The sort of redundancies which were pruned 
from the Casement indictment may be gathered by turning to the indict- 
ment on the trial of Lynch for treason in 1903. The following clause is 
redolent of the archaisms with which indictments until recently abounded, 
and which other forms of legal documents still retain in unnecessary exuber- 
ance. The Grand Jury presented that Lynch, " being a subject of our 
"said late Lady Queen Victoria, and well knowing the premises aforesaid, 
" but not regarding the duty of his allegiance nor having the fear of God 
" in his heart, and being moved and seduced by the instigation of the 
' ' devil, as a false traitor against our said late Lady Queen Victoria, and 
"wholly withdrawing the allegiance, fidelity, and obedience which every 
"true and faithful subject of our said late Lady Queen Victoria should 
" and have right ought to have borne towards our said late Lady Queen 
' ' Victoria, and contriving and with all his strength intending to aid and 
" assist the said enemies of our said late Lady Queen Victoria, against our 
"said Lady Queen Victoria and her subjects 1 , heretofore during the said 
" war, to wit, on the 18th day of January in the year aforesaid at Pretoria, 
" in the territory of the said South African Republic, in parts beyond the 
" seas without the realm of England, and at other times both before and 
' ' after that day, as well at Pretoria as elsewhere within the territory of the 
' ' said South African Republic, with force and arms unlawfully, maliciously, 
' ' and traitorously was adhering to, aiding, and comforting the said 
" Government and the said South African Republic under the said Govern- 
" ment, against our said late Lady Queen Victoria and her subjects, the 
"said Government of the said burghers and men then being enemies of 
" our said late Lady Queen Victoria." 

In the last treason trial before this of Casement, that of Ahlers, a 
naturalised German, in 1914, for the treason of adherence to the King's 
enemies, within and not without the realm, the same form was used. 
The benefit from and the simplifications of indictments may be convenient 
chiefly to certain lawyer officials who draw these documents, and the 
public may hardly be conscious of any change, except from the suppression 
of absurdities of language which were wont to raise a smile in Court when 
gravely read aloud to audiences sceptical as to mediaeval views about the 
devil. 

The assembling of twenty-three Grand Jurymen for the purpose 
of considering whether the indictment presented a prima facie case against 



Introduction. 

Casement, after a magisterial inquiry of three days, with a resulting com- 
mittal, may be considered to be one of these legal anachronisms whose 
abolition would be a public benefit. However, this, it must be admitted, 
is a matter of controversy. Conceivably the Grand Jury might have 
considered Casement the victim of Government tyranny ; might even have 
accepted his claim to be of the antique type of Irish patriot, and so have 
prevented his being put upon trial by finding " no bill," as an assertion 
of the people's right against the executive act of Government. Instead 
of so doing, after standing listening for fifty-six minutes to an address on 
the facts and the law from the Lord Chief Justice, Viscount Reading, and 
after an hour's absence, they returned true bills both against Casement and 
the prisoner Bailey, who has been before mentioned. 

Then followed the assignment of counsel to the prisoner. Casement 
was not present o<n this occasion, but Mr. Gavan Duffy, his solicitor, who 
had appeared for him at the Police Court, applied that counsel might be 
assigned, this being necessary under the Act 7 & 8 William III., chapter 3, 
passed in 1695-6, known as the Treason Act, which allows persons charged 
with treason to be defended by counsel, and requires the Court to assign 
two such persons as the accused may desire, a privilege of defence which 
before that date alleged traitors did not possess. They were left for 
their defence to the instigation of the devil ! This ceremony of assign- 
ment of counsel still lingers as part of the archaic fringe of the law 
of treason, and is not found in connection with any other kind of trial. 

It may be mentioned that it is this same Act which explains the 
questions put by the King's Coroner and Master of the Crown Office to 
Casement, as to whether he had received a copy of the indictment and 
a list of the jurors who were summoned to try him ; and this Act also 
provided that an indictment must be found by a Grand Jury within three 
years of the commission of the treason charged perhaps a unique privilege 
not known in respect of crimes other than treason. 

The person assigned to Casement as his leading counsel was Mr. 
Alexander Sullivan, K.C., the Second Serjeant of the Irish bar, who defended 
Casement by virtue of being a barrister called to the English bar in 1899, 
but not holding the rank of King's Counsel there. As to his rank of Second 
Serjeant in Ireland it may be noted that while the ancient order of the coif, 
the Serjeants at Law, who were once, in very far away times, the only 
advocates in the King'si EnglisTi Courts, has now passed away, and only 
an individual may perchance survive, it still lingers in Ireland. In 
Victorian days some of the leading advocates were of the order, but the 
King's Counsel were becoming the more common figures 1 as the leaders 
of the bar. In Ireland the office of Serjeant is also of great antiquity; 
but it was not conferred so freely as in England. Down to 1627 only 



Sir Roger Casement. 



one person held the dignity of Serjeant, and he was known as the King's 
Serjeant. In that year a second Serjeant was appointed, and the senior 
Serjeant was styled the prime Serjeant. In 1682 a third Serjeant was 
appointed; and the prime Serjeant became first Serjeant. So that Mr. 
Serjeant Sullivan is the second of a group of three of an ancient order of 
Serjeants at Law at the Irish bar. No order of Serjeants at Law is 
known in Scotland. 

Mr. Thomas Artemus Jones, the second counsel assigned to Casement, 
isi an able and well-known barrister a " rising junior," to use a phrase 
rather gone out. Mr. John Hartman Morgan is hardly a regularly practising 
barrister; he is a Professor of Constitutional Law at University College, 
London, and a publicist and journalist. He was not assigned as counsel, and 
therefore had no locus standi in the case ; but it will be seen that at on 
part of the proceedings this technical difficulty was evaded by the Lord 
Chief Justice allowing Professor Morgan to address an argument to the 
Court as amicus curice. As to the counsel who represented the Crown 
it is not necessary to do more than draw attention to the references 
made by Casement in hia statement before sentence to Sir Frederick E. 
Smith, the Attorney-General. The defence on the facts, as apart from the 
law, set up for Casement was that he had not plotted against the 
Crown, but was 1 intending to resist the armed forces that had been raised 
in Ulster for preventing Home Rule for Ireland. There was piquancy in 
the fact that the Attorney-General had taken so prominent a part in the 
Ulster movement, and that Casement appealed to the movement as an 
excuse for his treason. 

The Government counsel had pressed on the Lord Chief Justice that 
the trial should be fixed at as early a date as possible. The defence 
showed some inclination to put off the trial to a later date than the Crown 
was inclined to accept, alleging the necessity of obtaining evidence from 
America. The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that it was not apparent 
why witnesses in America were required. There was no satisfactory 
answer forthcoming, and no American witnesses were, in fact, called. A 
member of the American bar, Mr. Michael Francis Doyle, assisted the 
defence; but a certain mystery remains as to why Casement needed 
the assistance of an expert in American law. Ultimately the 
trial was fixed for the 26th of June ; and this was ample time for both 
sides. The way had already been prepared by the previous trial of 
Lynch. The authorities had been thoroughly examined, and all material 
collected for the purposes of that trial by the Crown lawyers ; and the 
counsel for Casement had the benefit of the reported arguments, arguments 
they themselves adopted and elaborated as they had been used for the 
defence in that case. 

XX 



Introduction. 

The trial was what is termed a trial at bar. By a kind of fiction 
it is supposed that the Court of King's Bench itself, that is now the whole 
body of the common law judges, sits, as, in fact, in ancient day it did, 
to hear and determine a case. The prisoner is at the bar of the Court 
itself. It is not necessary by law that all crimes of treason should be 
tried at bar. The last of the treason trials: before that of Casement was 
the trial of Ahlers, above mentioned, and he was tried at Durham Assizes, 
and sentenced to death there by Mr. Justice Shearman, who sat under the 
Commission by which the judges of assize sit. His, however, wasi a 
charge of treason committed within the realm, and it has already been 
shown that the Court of King's Bench itself must try treasons committed 
abroad. Hence a trial at bar was the proper mode of trial in the Casement 
caise. The trial of Lynch was; at bar in 1903, and there had been another 
famous trial at bar, that of Dr. Jameson, also arising out of South, African 
affairs, this latter trial being for the incursion into the Transvaal in breach 
of the Foreign Enlistment Act. This latter trial shows that a trial at bar 
may take place' whenever a case is of sufficient importance if the Court 
chooses to allow it, but it is quite at its discretion, in other cases than 
treason, whether it does so or not. The trial of Arthur Orton for perjury 
in 1873, and the action against Mr. Bradlaugh for penalties under the Par- 
liamentary Oaths Act in 1885 were instances. The only limitation of this 
discretion is in cases where the Crown is interested, and the Attorney- 
General may then demand a trial at bar as a matter of right. The 
usual number of judges at such a trial is three. 

The Attorney-General has also another privilege when he appears at 
a trial as representing the Crown. The rule in an ordinary criminal trial 
as to the addresses of counsel to the jury is that the prosecuting counsel 
addresses the jury last if counsel for the prisoner calls witnesses or puts 
in evidence on the prisoner's behalf ; if he does not, the last word, which 
is considered an advantage, lies with him. This rule, however, the 
Attorney-General has the right of disregarding. In any event, even 
when no witnesses are called by the prisoner, he claims the right to 
say the last word to the jury. The right has frequently been criticised as 
a relic of ideas about State prosecutions which no longer prevail. The 
Crown is really not often bloodthirsty for convictions, but the right is 
asserted, perhaps, on the principle that one never knows what may yet 
turn out to be useful. Accordingly in the Casement trial, though Serjeant 
Sullivan did not call witnesses, nor put the prisoner in the box, the 
Attorney-General had " the last word." 

The most important feature, however, of the Casement trial, from the 
point of view of procedure, was that it was the first trial for the treason of 
adhering to the King's enemies abroad which could be reviewed by the 

xxi 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Court of Criminal Appeal in case the prisoner was convicted. The Court 
of Criminal Appeal was not brought into existence until 1907, three years 
after the Lynch trial. The Court that tried Dr. Lynch at bar was the 
Court which had given a final decision. Serjeant Sullivan contended that 
this decision was wrong, and yet, in fact, that this case of Lynch was 
the only case actually decided by the Courts which was an authority against 
his contention that Casement could not be convicted for the treason of 
adhering to the King's enemies abroad. The first step in his defence 
had been to move, before any evidence was given by the Crown, that the 
indictment should be quashed on the ground that the foots charged in the 
indictment disclosed no offence in law; that is to say, that even though 
the facts were proved, or admitted by him to be true, and that they 
were such as would constitute the offence of adhering to the King's 
enemies if Casement had been present within the realm, yet that their 
commission having been abroad, the statute of Edward III., under which 
Casement was charged, did not declare that this was treason, and should 
be punished as such ; therefore without any further proceedings Casement 
was entitled to acquittal. The Court intimated that this objection to 
the indictment ought to be made at the close of the evidence for the 
Crown. Accordingly Serjeant Sullivan at that point again raised his 
objection, and a large part of the second day and a portion of the third 
were occupied with a discussion of the whole question, and an attack on the 
authorities relied upon by the Crown. It was on the third day that 
Professor Morgan was heard as amicus curice, as above mentioned. At 
the close of these arguments the Court delivered a judgment deciding 
against the objection to the indictment taken by the defence. There still 
remained the Court of Criminal Appeal, to which these arguments might 
be addressed if the verdict of the jury should be against the prisoner. 
After the conviction there followed the appeal to that Court, and below 
there will be found an attempt to facilitate the understanding of those 
somewhat difficult arguments by a survey which is perhaps as short as the 
nature of the subject permits. 

Very little more need be said about the trial itself. The evidence- 
is laid before the reader in the following pages, and it seems unnecessary 
to attempt any summary of it. The story at length is extremely inter- 
esting, and in summary it would be but a dry skeletal outline ; but there 
are several points relating to the trial of which something should be said. 
The first word spoken in the trial was the word " Oyez." Oyez was the 
Norman French word meaning " hear ye," and is still used in those 
formal proclamations made when the Courts, such as the Courts of 
Assize, open their sittings under the King's Commission. It is one of the 
few Norman French words that have survived, like the formula " le roi le 
xxii 



Introduction. 

" veult," used in giving the King's consent to legislation. It is said that 
the original pronunciation has been retained by the tradition of the 
Courts, a,nd that Oh ! Yes!, absurd though it seems, is quite correct. 

The functions of the modern Coroner are so specific and so familiar 
that the reader may be somewhat surprised to find a Coroner, even though 
he may be the King's Coroner, taking so prominent a part in this trial 
of treason. It will be noticed that the officer of the Court who read 
the indictment, and took the prisoner's plea, and who was the only 
person in the Court who addressed Casement throughout the trial, is 
termed the King's Coroner and Master of the Crown Office, which implies 
that two offices are now embodied in the same holder. The King's 
Coroner, as all Coroners 1 were in ancient days, was an officer exercising many 
wide and important functions in the service of the Crown, besides those of 
holding inquests ; though these also often directly concerned the King, 
either as regarding his revenue or the State administration of police. One 
imagines more easily the character of the King's Coroner in early days 
by remembering that the Lord Chief Justice who presided at Casement's 
trial is, by virtue of his office, as head of the King's Bench, the Chief 
Coroner of the kingdom. The office of King's Coroner goes back to the 
ancient office of Clerk of the Crown. The King's Coroner branched off 
from that as a separate office, but when and how is not known. The 
connection between the Lord Chief Justice and the King's Coroner is 
indicated by the fact that the King's Coroner is appointed by the Lord 
Chief Justice. As to the Master of the Crown Office, his functions depend 
on the fact that he is the head of the administrative business of the 
Crown side of the Court of King's Bench. The Crown Office is coeval 
with the Court itself, as it was the office of the Clerk of the Crown, who 
has already been mentioned in connection with the King's Coroner. 

The Crown Office records commence in the 3 Edward III., and therefore 
twenty-two years earlier in the reign of the same King who> gave his name 
to the statute under which Casement was tried. The keeper of these 
records is now the King's Coroner and Master of the Crown Office, the 
two offices having been merged into one in 1892. In course of time the 
separate functions of the two offices had become indistinguishable, or 
rather perhaps the Master of the Crown Office had absorbed most of 
them. It cannot now be said that the King's Coroner has any functions 
distinct from those of the Master of the Crown Office. Whatever they are, 
the one salary of the Master of the Crown Office is the remuneration for 
both. Perhaps it may be desirable to add that the Coroner of the 
King's Household, an office still in separate existence, has no connection 
with the King's Coroner of whom we have been speaking. 

The trial began on Monday, 26th June, and was concluded on Thurs- 

xxiii 



Sir Roger Casement. 



day, the 29th June. On the latter day the jury retired to consider their 
verdict, and returned into Court after an absence of fifty-five minutes with 
a verdict of guilty. The prisoner then was asked if he had anything to 
say why the Court should not pass sentence and judgment of death upon 
him; and in response he made the statement which has been previously 
referred to. Some controversy arose respecting it after the trial. Sir 
Harry Poland, K.C., whose opinion on criminal law is highly regarded by 
lawyers, stated that when a man who is convicted by the jury is called 
upon to say why judgment should not be passed upon him according to 
law, he is only entitled to move on some point of law in arrest of judg- 
ment. Obviously Casement did more than this; and one objection in 
regard to his speech was that the counsel for the Crown had no oppor- 
tunity of replying to it. The case of Wainwright, whose trial took place 
in 1875, was cited by Sir Homewood Crawford, the solicitor of the City 
of London. When Wainwright was asked if he had anything to say, he 
started to deliver what would have been a long speech. He had the 
reputation of being an eloquent speaker, and was evidently intending to 
exercise his gift, but the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Cockburn, 
quickly stopped him, saying, " I cannot allow you to make a speech. The 

only question put to you is whether you have anything to say why 
" sentence should not be passed upon you." The usual practice in 
criminal trials, especially for capital offences!, is to allow the prisoner to 
make a verbal statement before sentence. If it is put into writing it may 
be read openly by the prisoner if he prefers, or by the judge privately. 
The statement is not interrupted, unless it attacks persons not parties to 
the proceedings, or otherwise contains scandalous matter. But it remains 
quite true that this is not a right, but a grace or judicial courtesy; and 
the prisoner has no legal claim to do more than take objection to the verdict 
and judgment. Evidently what was allowed in the Casement case was 
a matter of discretion. Was it more expedient in the circumstances that 
Casement should be allowed to have his say, or peremptorily to close his 
mouth? To stop such an appeal to political sentiment as this was not 
necessary for any specific public purpose; and to have appeared afraid of 
what Casement might say would have exaggerated his importance, and so 
have been neither discreet nor dignified. The Lord Chief Justice appears 
to have taken quite the right course in allowing Casement the liberty he 
actually took. 

There remained to the convict the right to appeal from the sentence 
and judgment to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and he availed himself 
of it. His appeal was inconsistent with the attitude he took in his 
statement with regard to the jurisdiction of any English Court to deter- 
mine his guilt or innocence, but to that inconsistency was due the more 

xxiv 



Introduction. 

elaborated arguments which were laid before the Court of Criminal Appeal, 
though essentially they were the same previously raised, and decided 
against him, at the trial at bar. In the notice of appeal objections were 
formulated relating not only to the judgment of the Court upon the charge 
of the treason of adherence committed out of the realm, but also to the 
direction of the Lord Chief Justice to the jury as to the nature of the offence 
of adherence, and to the admission of certain evidence, especially the 
printed appeal, which was circulated amongst the prisoners in the camp 
at Limburg. But in the arguments before the Court no other point was, 
in fact, raised than that which had been before the Court of trial, namely, 
the question of adherence in Germany out of the realm. The Court of 
Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mr. Justice Darling, and consisting of 
five judges, took exactly the same view, we may say, of Serjeant Sullivan's 
new presentation of his case as the Court of trial had taken when he 
moved to quash the indictment. They dismissed the appeal without 
having called on counsel for the Crown in a judgment of the Court delivered 
by Mr. Justice Darling on the 18th of July, 1916, after a discussion 
covering two days. The account of the proceedings in the Court of 
Criminal Appeal followsi, in the body of this book, the account of the 
trial. We may perhaps remark that it was an advantage to the Court 
of Appeal, in considering the arguments, to be relieved from the enormous 
strain of the trial which the Lord Chief Justice and his fellow- judges, Mr. 
Justice Avory and Mr. Justice Horridge, had to bear ; and the reader may 
be indebted to that relief from strain for the apt quotation from Milton 
which adorned the judgment of Mr. Justice Darling. Serjeant Sullivan 
was not likely to be unappreciative of the humour of it, as a repartee 
to his own fierce attacks on the reputation of Lord Coke. 

THE ARGUMENTS AND JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. 

The objection to the indictment framed under the statute of Edward 
III. of 1351, which was taken at the trial and argued there by Serjeant 
Sullivan, and also on the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, was that 
there was no treasonable offence under this statute of Edward III. of adhering 
outside the realm unless the prisoner was at the time within the realm. From 
the year of the statute, 1351, to the year 1903, when Rex v. Lynch was 
tried, he contended that there had been no argument and no decision upon 
the statute as to adhering outside the realm, and that when the latter 
case was examined it would be found to be based upon misapprehensions of 
a case of Eex v. Vaughan, which was not really a decision upon the 
statute. 

In this alleged absence of relevant decisions he submitted that since 



Sir Roger Casement. 



the prisoner was charged with adhering out of the realm, he being 
out of the realm, any exposition of the statute of Edward III. or comments 
upon it by text-writers;, however great their reputation, which would fix 
on him the offence, were merely expressions of personal opinion which had 
no authority or binding foroe upon any judge or Court. Certain great 
expositors of the common law, as Lord Coke, Sir Matthew Hale, and Mr. 
Serjeant Hawkins, whose opinions in many matters of the common law, 
civil or criminal, are often taken as almost conclusive, had construed and 
expounded the statute in a contrary sense from that for which he was 
contending. The Court, however, ought not to take even their opinions 
as conclusive. Moreover, there was another objection to be made. These 
opinions had not even the value which may be attributed to the opinions 
of great lawyers and general professional opinion as to the meaning and 
construction of a statute when they are contemporaneous with the statute 
itself. Lord Coke, the earliest of these writers, did not comment on 
the Act of Edward III. until the statute of 26 Henry VIII. had come 
into existence and altered the whole law of treason, both as regards sub- 
stantive offences and the procedure and mode of trial of offences of treason. 
The 26 Henry VIII. was in the year 1535, one hundred and eighty- four 
years after the statute of Edward III. 

These being the circumstances, and the situation in which Casement 
was put upon his trial, Serjeant Sullivan urged upon the two Courts before 
which he appeared that they were untrammelled by previous authority 
either of decisions or opinions that had been held and expressed by 
eminent expounders and commentators on the law. 

Addressing the Court of Criminal Appeal in two passages, one of 
which is at the beginning and the other at the end, he said as to the 
question being de novo, " I intend on the construction of the statute to 
" submit that if we had to construe this statute as though it had passed 
" yesterday, the first reading of it would convey a perfectly clear view of 
<c the provisions of the statute to the mind of everybody, and that that 
" clear view would be inconsistent with the matter charged in the indictment 
" being an offence under the statute." The second passage is as follows : 
" My lords, for these reasons I submit that this Court is not trammelled 
" by the speculative opinions of any text-writers where the statute has not 
" been construed by any other Court except the Court at bar in The King 
" v. Lynch, and accordingly that the Court should approach this statute 
"as if the statute had passed yesterday, and, if reading it as passing 
" yesterday, a clear opinion on the terms of the statute is conveyed to the 
" mind of the Court, that should be the reading of the statute, no matter 
" for how many years text-writers have expressed a different opinion." 

It is obvious why Serjeant Sullivan was attacking the authority of 
xxvi 



Introduction. 

Lord Coke, Sir Matthew Hale, and Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, and urging the- 
Court to approach the construction of the statute as if it were res integra. 
These writers were all against him ; and it is as well to know at once that 
the Court declined his invitation to dismiss these writers! from considera- 
tion, and construe the statute independently as if they were reading it for 
the first time, and it had never been commented on. Mr. Justice Darling, 
giving the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, said, " We are- 
"relying, confessedly relying, upon the authority of Sir Matthew Hale 
" and of Serjeant Hawkins in the judgment we are giving, and also upon 
"the opinion expressed by Lord Coke, to which I will come presently. " 
He then quotes a passage from a judgment of Chief Justice Dallas in a case 
of Butt v. Conant in 1820, who said, " Now, if the authority of Lord 
" Hale and that of Mr. Serjeant Hawkins are to be treated lightly, we 
"may be without any authority whatever." Mr. Justice Darling's 
observation upon this is, " Here we are asked to treat them lightly; we 
" are asked to reject them altogether/' 

Mr. Justice Darling also quotes another passage which directly bears 
on one of the contentions of Serjeant Sullivan, that Lord Coke had not 
grounded his opinions upon the authority of actually decided cases. This 
passage, quoted by Mr. Justice Darling, is the following, and is to be 
found in the case of Garland v. Jekyll in 1824, "The fact is Lord Coke 
" had no authority for what he states, but I am afraid we should get rid of 
" a good deal of what is considered law in Westminster Hall if what Lord 
" Coke says, without authority, is not law. He was one of the most 
" eminent lawyers that ever presided as a judge in any Court of Justice, 
" and what is said by such a person is good evidence of what the law is, 
"particularly when it is in conformity with justice and common sense." 
Mr. Justice Darling's observation on this passage is, " Those are the worda 
" of Chief Justice Best." 

Though Serjeant Sullivan asked the judges to construe the statute of 
Edward a if it had been passed yesterday, this was really not quite what 
he meant. He asked that the statute should be construed freed from 
the accretions of text-writers of subsequent ages, and read in the light of 
the customs or laws of legal procedure which prevailed when the statute 
was passed. In this way would best be inferred what was the most 
probable meaning of the statute when it was passed. His position was 
that if this were done the statute could then be construed a hardly more 
than raising a question of grammatical construction, a question of the 
syntax of the sentence or sentences. In that case, then, he invited the 
judges to say that the words of the statute creating the treason of adhering 
to the King's enemies must be read in such a way that Casement could 
not have been properly convicted. The sentences plainly meant, he 



Sir Roger Casement. 



contended, that Casement could not have committed the treason of adhering 
to the King's enemies without the realm, seeing that he was not in the 
realm when he attempted to persuade the Irish soldiers from their 
allegiance. The man must be in the realm, though the acts alleged against 
him may have been committed outside the realm. 

As a matter of common sense, and as an effective law of treason for 
the present day, this may appear to the reader as not at all satisfactory. 
But if the question is merely what is the grammatical meaning of the 
sentences in the Act he will, we think, consider them very puzzling, and 
agree that on the face of it Serjeant Sullivan's rendering is possible, or 
even probable. It presents a nice exercise in grammatical construction, 
and one arrives at a very unflattering opinion of the literary skill of the 
draftsmen of the Edwardian era. The ingenious renderings of the judges 
and Serjeant Sullivan may be read in the arguments, where is also to be 
found some very interesting antiquarian lore about the MSS. of the old 
statutes. The language, then, of the statute of treasons must be admitted 
to be ambiguously worded, and Serjeant Sullivan could not merely give his 
reading, and leave it there, without doing something more to make his 
reading appear to be the more probable of two or more possible ones. It 
was obvious that the judges could not simply be asked to read and construe 
the statute as if they saw it for the first time. The principle upon 
which Serjeant Sullivan proceeded in his argument is one expressed 
in a passage from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, chapter II. 
" The language of a statute must be understood in the sense in which it 
"was understood when it was passed, and those who lived at or near the 
" time when it was passed may reasonably be supposed to be better 
' ' acquainted than their descendants with the circumstances to which it had 
" relation, as well as with the sense then attached to legislative expressions." 
What Serjeant Sullivan therefore laboured to show was that the 
statute, at the time it was passed, must have had a different meaning 
from that put upon it by Lord Coke, Sir Matthew Hale, and Mr. Serjeant- 
Hawkins, and that these "descendants" of the legislators of 1351 mis- 
understood what had then been done, because, in fact, they were not 
particularly well acquainted with the circumstances to which the statute 
had relation ; or that they ignored them. Serjeant Sullivan's argument, 
put shortly, runs thus " You say that the statute of Edward III. makes 
" a treasonable offence of adhering to the King's enemies abroad although 
"the offender was not in the realm. My answer is that at that time 
" a crime committed abroad could not be tried in England as, on account 
" of the law of judicial procedure of that period, there was no Court which 
"had jurisdiction to try an offence committed abroad." His inference 
from this was drawn as follows: " What I submit is this, that nothing is 



Introduction. 

" treason unless it can be so adjudicated treason. When you are dealing* 
" "with the Courts of law it is not a matter of morals but of la,w. Unless 
" there is some Court that can say whether a treasonable act has been com- 
" mitted or not, on the inquiry into the matter, it cannot be treason to 
" do an act which you can do without being punishable for it, or triable for 
"it in a Court of law. There cannot be what in law amounts to a crime 
" of which no Court can inform itself. You must not be presumed to have 
"committed a crime until you have been lawfully condemned, and if 
" there exists no machinery, not only for condemnation but for inquiry, 
" I submit that is overwhelming proof that the act cannot be a caime, when 
" its legal quality cannot be inquired into." 

We need not consider the question whether it is theoretically true to 
say that an act is not a crime if no Court exists which can try it. But 
evidently Serjeant Sullivan's argument depends on the alleged historical 
fact that no Court existed in those early days of the common law, when 
the statute was passed, for trying an offence of adhering to the King's 
enemies in the realm of some other Prince. Was there any such Court? 
If there were not, it would be the height of absurdity to enact that adhering 
to the King's enemies abroad should be treason. If it were intended 
then that such adhering should be treason, there being no such Court, one 
would have to be created. The statute, however, did not create any 
Court or any procedure for a Court. The inference therefore drawn 
by Serjeant Sullivan was that it was not intended to make adhering abroad 
a treason unless the offender were in the realm, in which case some Court 
could probably be found which would have power to try that offence by 
the fact of the offender being in the realm. 

But now suppose, in the absence of any regular Court, say, the King's 
ordinary Courts, which could try the offence of adhering abroad when the 
offender was not in the realm, that the King had the right, by the fact 
of his sovereignty, and without any statute conferring such a power on 
him, of appointing a Commission ad hoc? Suppose he could endow that 
Commission with the right to inquire into the treason according to the 
ordinary methods of the common law, and, on proof of guilt, with the power 
to impose upon the culprit the usual punishments of the common law of 
treason? Then it is obvious that the alleged fact of there being no Court 
to try the treason would be untrue, and Serjeant Sullivan's argument 
would collapse. 

He had therefore to show that the King could not, and did not, 
issue such commissions unless there were statutory authority, and he con- 
tended that this statutory authority was conferred upon the King for the 
first time by the statute of 26 Henry VIII. in 1535. 

The general rule of the common law was that crimes must be tried in- 



Sir Roger Casement. 



the county where they were committed; the venue must be laid there, 
as was said. If a man were shot in one county, for example, but died 
in another from the wound, as he might do where the occurrence happened 
on the borders of counties, this raised a difficulty. In the arguments will 
be found much interesting information as to the dilemmas that might 
occur. There was a doubt whether the murderer could be tried at all 
until the statute of Edward I. (1272-1297). Sir James Fitzjames Stephen 
was of opinion that he could not; but this statute made provisions as to 
the venue, and laid down rules by which in one county or the other the 
trial might be held. 

Serjeant Sullivan contended that before the statute the murderer 
could not have been tried, and that a statute was necessary to remove the 
difficulty. This being so as regards counties, he proceeded to consider 
what happened when such a crime as murder was committed out of the 
realm, in which case there would be no venue under the common law. 
There seems to be little doubt that this case could not have been tried at 
common law. But there were other Courts than the common law Courts 
which could have tried this offence, and others of a similar character which 
the common law Courts could not try. The Courts of the Marshal and 
Constable could have tried the offence just mentioned of murder out of 
the realm. The Court of the Admiral had jurisdiction to try crimes com- 
mitted on the high seas 1 , or on estuaries and rivers not in the bodies of 
counties. These Courts sat in virtue of Commissions issued to the Constable 
and Marshal and the Admiral. But if " a man be stricken upon the 
"high sea, and dies of the same stroke upon the land, they cannot be 
" inquired of by the common law " so asserts an old writer. To 
remedy this difficulty, which is analogous to the case of the two counties 
before mentioned, a statute of 13 Richard II. (1377-1399) enabled the 
Constable and Marshal to hear and determine the same. 

Now, in all these instances, argued Serjeant Sullivan, whether the 
difficulty arose out of two English counties, or the scene of action being 
wholly abroad, or partly abroad, or partly on the high seas and partly on 
the land, the common law Courts had no jurisdiction to try them, and there- 
fore they were not common law offences. The common law was not applic- 
able except it was made applicable by statute, and in all the above cases 
some statute had brought them within the sphere and jurisdiction of 
some Court. The Courts of the Constable and Marshal and of the 
Admiral indeed punished, treasons, as they punished, other crimes, when 
such crimes came within their jurisdiction ; but they did not try them, 
nor punish them, as common law crimes. Such was the position when the 
statute of Edward III. was passed, laying down a law, or laws, of several 
kinds of treason, amongst them that of adhering to the King's enemies. 



Introduction. 

If it were intended that the offence when committed abroad out of the 
realm should be tried and punished here it must be punishable either in the 
Constable and Marshal's Court, in which case it would be triable like 
murder out of the realm, and not according to the common law, and with 
the common law punishments. If it were intended that itsi character 
should be changed, and come under the common law, then there was no 
Court to try it, and some procedure of Court must be provided by statute, 
as had always been done when the strict common law doctrine of venue had 
to be extended. But the statute itself was silent altogether as to pro- 
cedure, and implied no other Court than the common law Court. The 
inference, therefore, was that it left the common law venue as it stood 
at that time, and did not intend to create a treason of adhering to the 
King out of the realm. 

This argument was supported and strengthened by the fact that 
when the law of treason was altered, and new treasons were created by 
the statute 26 Henry VIII. expressly, and amongst other treasons it was 
enacted that adhering to the King's enemies abroad should be treason, the 
statute proceeded to lay down rules of procedure and to appoint a Court 
which should try these treasons. They were to be " inquired of and pre- 
" sented by the oaths of twelve good and lawful men, upon good and probable 
" evidence and witness, in such county and shire of this realm, and before 
" such persons 1 as it shall please the King's Highness to appoint by com- 
" mission under his great seal, in like manner and form as treasons com- 
" mitted within this realm have been used to be inquired of and presented, 
" and that upon every indictment and presentment found and made of 
" any such treasons, and certified into the King's Bench, like process and 
" other circumstances shall be there had and made against the offenders as 
' ' if the same treasons so presented had been lawfully found to be done 
" and committed within the limits of this realm." 

This tribunal was a statutory tribunal, a special Commission to be 
appointed by the King by statutory power, and was not a common law 
tribunal. By the 35 Henry VIII., according to Serjeant Sullivan, the 
common law came in for the first time in the case of treasons committed 
abroad. This statute enacted that all treasonable offences already 
declared such, or that should thereafter be declared to be such, to be 
done or committed out of the realm, " shall be from henceforth inquired 
"of, heard, and determined before the King's justices of his bench for 
" pleas to be holden before himself by good and lawful men of the same 
" shire where the said bench shall sit and be kept, or else be before such 
" Commissioners, and in such shire of the realm as shall be assigned by 
" the King's Majesty's Commission, and by good and lawful men of the 
"same shire in like manner" as if they had been done "within the 

xxxi 



Sir Roger Casement. 



" same shire whereof they shall be so inquired of, heard, and determined 
"as is aforesaid." 

The argument of Serjeant Sullivan drawn from these two statutes of 
Henry VIII. was that the acts committed outside the realm must previously 
have not been punishable, therefore not crimes, and if they had not been 
new offbncea there would have been no necessity for the firet statute, 
" with its clumsy procedure " ; and that the second statute was passed to 
reform this procedure, which was done by bringing the acts within the 
common law procedure. 

In its judgment the Court did not decide on this antiquarian argument, 
as it may be termed, because, on their construction of the statute of 
Edward III., they held that the statute itself, on its own wording, made 
adhering outside the realm an offence of treason; and that there was a 
great deal of authority for this proposition. But we find in the argument 
Mr. Justice Darling saying that Serjeant Sullivan left out, as it seemed 
to him, the power of the Crown to issue Commissions for the trial of 
treasons committed out of the realm. To this Serjeant Sullivan replied 
that if there were such commissions they would have been found, and that 
they had not been found. In every case, so far as he knew, he said, they 
had been issued under statutory power. When he was asked by Mr. 
Justice Darling where he found a commission which was issued by statutory 
authority which was the first of them? he answered, " I cannot tell 
"you." Agiain, Mr. Justice Darling said, "When you find what 
" Hale, Coke, and Hawkins thought about this matter it really will not 
"do. The War of the Roses took place in England, and this statute of 
" Henry VIII. was passed when England was only just settling down from 
" a long period of devastating war." 

The statute- of 26 Henry VIII. making new treasons was repealed by 
the Act of Mary I. (1553-1558), which restored the law of treason as it 
stood in the statute of Edward III. of 1351. Other treasonable offences 
were created by subsequent statutes down to the reign of Queen Anne, but 
these were all repealed between 1860 and 1870. Serjeant Sullivan discussed 
these statutes* for the purpose of pointing out that, even so late as the 
eighteenth century, they dealt carefully with the question of venue when 
a crime outside the realm was created; and therefore, a fortiori, the 
question of venue must have been in the minds of the legislators in the 
time of Edward III. 

Serjeant Sullivan had now reached the stage in his argument when 
he might consider the interpretation of the statute of Edward III., there 
being against him the authority of the text- writers, Coke, Hale, and 
Hawkins, and the cases- which they had quoted and relied on for their 
opinions, that the adherence to the King's enemies outside the realm was 



Introduction. 

treason under the statute of Edward III. The view he presented was 
that none of these writers produced any valid authority, and that their 
opinions per se were not authoritative. He maintained that there was 
no decided case on the statute until that of Rex v. Lynch in 1903, where 
the indictment was for the offence of adhering abroad, and he submitted 
that this case had been wrongly decided. 

We may observe that in the judgment the Court stated that they 
purposely did not rely upon this case, simply for the reason that they 
were of opinion that there was ample authority for the conclusion to 
which the Court indubitably came in that case, to be found in the de- 
cisions, and in the opinions of great lawyers, to which reference was made 
in the judgment in the present case. 

Serjeant Sullivan did not, and could not, deny that the opinions of 
these writers! were utterly opposed to his contention. Would he have 
been in a better position if he could have shown that the cases they 
actually cited as their authorities were irrelevant or could be explained, as 
he attempted to do, on the ground that these cases were of offences triable 
by the special Courts of the Constable and Marshal or Admiral, and not 
by the common law Courts? It is hardly likely that he would, considering 
the attitude in which the Court approached these authorities. Mr. Justice 
Darling, both in the arguments and in the judgment of the Court, as we 
have seen, read from judgments of Chief Justice Dallas and Chief Justice 
Best certain passages in which they had said that the Courts would have 
to get rid of a good deal of what was considered law if what. Lord Coke said 
without authority was not law. 

Whether Serjeant Sullivan did, as a matter of fact, prove that Lord 
Coke's authorities would not stand examination we shall not attempt to 
decide, as the Court neither affirmed nor denied ; but we may refer to an 
observation of Mr. Justice Scrutton (which appears on page 264) at the 
close of a discussion on some of the cases Lord Coke had cited as authorities. 
This was after, it may be noted, Serjeant Sullivan had admitted that there 
were places in the King's Dominions, but out of the realm, in the strict 
sense of the region of the common law of England, where offences having 
been committed there could be a trial in England. Upon this Mr. Justice 
Scrutton remarked, " Perhaps there is a little more to be said for Lord 
" Coke than you thought. You will not be quite so severe on him when 
" you next come to address us about him, will you? " 

But although the Court frankly adopted the opinions of Lord Coke, 
Sir Matthew Hale, and Mr. Serjeant Hawkins as the main ground of their 
decision, they also, by an independent reading of the statute, rejected 
the interpretation which Serjeant Sullivan put upon it. He had asked 
them to interpret it as if they were reading it for the first time. They 



xxxm 



Sir Roger Casement. 



accepted his invitation, and arrived at a conclusion which had the merit 
of supporting the authority of the impeached text- writers. 

Serjeant Sullivan's criticism, or accusation, of Lord Coke was that 
he had left out the essential and governing words of the whole section 
relating to adhering. The offence is described in the statute a,s a man 
being " adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid 
" and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted 
" of open deed." Lord Coke had set out the statute correctly, and had 
translated it correctly, but when he came to the detailed commentary he 
leaves out the words " in his realm," as they first occur, and make his 
comment as if the whole sentence ran " adherent to the King's enemies, 
" giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere." This, said 
Serjeant Sullivan, altered the whole meaning of the statute. 

Coke's commentary was only justifiable,, Serjeant Sullivan contended, 
on the supposition that these words "in his realm" might be omitted; 
and it was the commentary so made, he urged, which became the foundation 
of what was the plain error of the writer. This commentary runs thus 
" This is here explained, viz., in giving aid and comfort to the King's 
"enemies within the realm or without; delivery or surrender of the 
" King's castles or forts by the King's captaine thereof to the King's 
" enemie within or without for reward, &c., is an adhering to the King's 
" enemie, and consequently treason declared by this Act." 

Serjeant Sullivan submitted, as has already been pointed out, that 
these cases of delivering of castles were not at common law at all, but were 
within the jurisdiction of the Constable and Marshal; therefore it was 
not a crime to which the statute refers, because it could not be tried by 
the King's Courts at common law. 

The reading of the statute which Serjeant Sullivan put before the 
Court, and the meaning he put on the statute when the limitation of the 
words " in hie realm " wasi given its proper effect, as well as the opinion 
of the Court as to the meaning of the statute, may be best given by a 
quotation from the judgment. 

Mr. Justice Darling said, " Taking the words of the statute them- 
" selves, it appears to us that the construction for which Serjeant Sullivan 
" contends is not the true one. He would have it that ' be adherent to 
" ' the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in 
" 'the realm or elsewhere,' means that the adherence, because it is the 
"adherence which is the offence, really must be by a person who, being 
' ( in this country, gives the aid and comfort, it may be in this country, it 
"may be outside of it. We agree that if a person, being within this 
"country, gives aid and comfort to the King's enemies in this country, 
" he is adherent to the King's enemies; we agree (and Serjeant Sullivan 
xxxiv 



Introduction. 

" admits this) that if he is in this country, and he gives aid and comfort 
" to the King's enemies outside this country, he is adherent to the King's 
" enemies. But we think there is another offence, and that these words 
t( musit mean something more than that. We think that the meaning 
" of these words is this ' giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies,' 
' ' are words of apposition ; they are words to explain what is meant by 
" being adherent to, and we think that if a man be adherent to the King's 
"enemies in his realm by giving to them aid and comfort in his realm, 
" or if he be adherent to the King's enemies elsewhere, that is, by giving 
" to them aid and comfort elsewhere, he is equally adherent to the King's 
" enemies, and if he is adherent to the King's enemies, then he commits 
"the treason which the statute of Edward III. defines. Reasons may be 
" given for that, but we think a very good reason is to be found in this, 
" that the subjects of the King owe him allegiance, and the allegiance 
" follows the person of the subject. He is the King's liege wherever 
" he may be, and he may violate his allegiance in a foreign country just 
" as well as he may violate it in this country." 

We should like here to refer to an interesting argument of Serjeant 
Sullivan which he presented for the purpose of showing that the statute of 
Edward III. could not have meant to make adhering to the King's enemies 
abroad a treasonable offence. This argument will be found on page 210. 
Serjeant Sullivan said, " My lords, at the time of the statute there were 
" in England among the great landowners and nobles a number of persons 
"who were under two allegiances, one in England, and, in respect of 
" lands which they extensively owned in France, another allegiance in 
" France. The limitation of levying war, and I submit also the clear 
' ' limitation of adhering, arose from the fact that, being feudal subjects of 
"the King of France in respect of French lands, and of the King of 
" England in respect of English lands, the barons themselves would be 
' ' anxious to limit the decision of treason in such a, way as that their 
" English lands should not be forfeited in respect of service and homage 
" rendered in respect of their possessions outside the realm rendered to 
" the King's enemies. At page 460 of the first volume of Pollock and 
" Maitland there is this passage 'The territory within which, according 
" ' to later law, subjects would be born to the King of England was large; 
" 'under Henry II. it became vast. It comprehended Ireland; at times 
"'(to say the least) it comprehended Scotland; it stretched to the 
" ' Pyrenees. Then, again, the law, even of Bracton's day, acknow- 
" ' ledged that a man might be a subject of the French King and hold 
" 'land in France, and yet be a subject of the English King and hold 
" ' land in England. It was prepared to meet the case of a war between 
' ' ' the two Kings ; the amphibious baron might fight in person for his 



Sir Roger Casement. 



" ' lieg lord, but he must also send his due consignment of knights to the 
" ' opposite army. In generation after generation a Robert Bruce holds 
' ' ' lands on both sides of the Scotch Border ; no one cares to remember on 
" ' which side he was born.' It was the Parliament that was seeking 
" to have a definition of treason, which, of course, at that time was 
" very largely a matter affecting titles to property, and developed, 
"indeed, in the early days as part of the law of real property." Then 
he says, " I submit that is a very plain reason why the Parliament would 
' ' be most anxious to see that the persons who very largely constituted the 
" Parliament should be put in a position of having to elect, with two 
' ' feudal claims upon them, which of their territories they should forfeit 
" in case their two feudal lords disagreed and went to war." 

It may occur to the reader as strange that the question whether a 
man has committed treason should have to be determined on the con- 
struction of a statute written in a form of French which has- long been 
obsolete, and of which the English translation makes necessary such an 
elaborate exercise in parsing or analysis of sentences. Moreover, un- 
ambiguous though the opinions of Lord Coke, Sir Matthew Hale, and Mr. 
Serjeant Hawkins are as to the meaning of the statute, it can still hardly 
be considered satisfactory that our Courts in the twentieth century should 
have to accept their authority, as it were, uncritically. The law upon 
which these text-writers were stating their opinions was the product of an 
age whose institutions have entirely passed away and their memory almost 
passed into oblivion was rapidly passing into oblivion at the time when 
they wrote, four or five hundred years after the statute was passed. In 
the thirteenth century feudal institutions were in full vigour. Not much 
more than half a century after Lord Coke wrote, the last remnants of the 
feudal system are commonly said to have been abolished in the reign 
of Charles II. If our judges of to-day are not to rely on what Lord Coke 
lays down as the law of that far-away period of law, how can they them- 
selves form an independent opinion of it when a case surprisingly happens 
involving that law? They must necessarily put themselves in the same 
mental or professional attitude towards Lord Coke and other ancient 
writers as their comparatively recent predecessors, Chief Justice Dallas 
and Chief Justice Best. The Courts have by a sort of compulsion con- 
ferred on these text-writers the authority of legislators, or, at least, of the 
Courts of law. So long as this professional tradition is followed the 
law as expounded by the authoritative text-writers may not be more 
difficult to ascertain than if it were, in fact, contained in an Act of 
Parliament or in the decisions of the Courts. It is therefore eminently 
desirable that the Courts should not depart from this tradition, and this 
sound rule the Court of trial and the Court of Criminal Appeal observed 
xxxvi 



Introduction. 

in the Casement trial. This, moreover, can be said for it, that legis- 
lators, presumably, are aware that the law has been so-and-so established 
by following the traditions of the text-writers, and if they choose not 
to interfere it may be urged that the law expresses the state of public 
opinion of the times. This has turned out to be true as regards the law 
of treason laid down and applied in the Casement case. Supposing that 
the Legislature, struck with what must be admitted to be the extraordinarily 
laboured process necessary to demonstrate that treason can be committed 
abroad, determined to pass an explicit law of treason, what else could 
Parliament do but embody the result of the Casement trial ? They would 
probably state the law in some such language as that of Sir James Fitz- 
james Stephen in his Digest of the Criminal Law " Every one commits 
' ' high treason who, either in the realm or without it, actively assists a 
" public enemy at war with the King." This is exactly the law as deter- 
mined by the Court of Criminal Appeal from their reading of the statute 
of Edward III., and the interpretation of it by the text- writers whom they 
really followed. Yet how much simpler, and more adapted to ordinary 
comprehension, is it expressed by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen than in 
the statute or in the later, but still unmodern English, of those text- 
writers! Such simplicity of statement would have made any chance of 
Casement escaping the consequenceis of his guilt impossible. Serjeant 
Sullivan could not have availed himself of the ambiguities of an ancient 
statute, or the possible invalidity of a professional tradition. Such an 
opportunity, however, is not likely to occur again. The decision of the 
Court of Criminal Appeal is now as authoritative as to what the law of 
treason is as it is consonant with public opinion as to what that law ought 
to be; and Parliamentary remodelling of the statute of Edward III. will 
probably be deferred to a quite distant future. 

After the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal an application 
was made to the Attorney-General for his certificate under section 1 (6) of 
the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, authorising a further appeal by the defence 
to the House of Lords on the ground that the decision involved a point of 
law of exceptional public importance, and that it was desirable in the 
public interest that a further appeal should be brought. The Attorney- 
General, however, in the exercise of his discretion, refused his certificate. 

Our final remarks on the Casement trial must refer to his execution, 
which took place in Pentonville Prison on 3rd August, 1916. The 
execution was within the walls of the prison ; that is precisely a,s 
though Casement's offence had been murder. The Act of 1868, which 
enacted that the execution of the death sentence must be in prison, dealt 
only with executions for the crime of murder, and not for the offence of 
treason. In the latest edition of Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, it 



Sir Roger Casement. 



is stated that the Act for executing sentence of death within gaols do 
not apply to cases of treason, and indeed by sections 2 and 16 together 
appears to exclude its operation in such cases ' ' An execution for treason 
" would, therefore, it would seem have to be public." Statements 
founded apparently on this were also made in legal journals. If this 
had been true a special Act of Parliament would have been necessary 
authorising Casement's execution in private, unless the sentence were 
commuted, as a public execution could hardly have been tolerated. Several 
considerations it would seem have been overlooked in those statements. It 
had been said by Coke himself that the King might remit some part of 
the punishment of treason, e.g., the quartering, so that there might be 
decapitation only, the usual judgment as to execution for treason in Coke's 
day. By the Forfeiture Act, 1870, the punishment for high treason is 
hanging, but the King, by warrant, countersigned by a Secretary of State, 
may substitute death by decapitation. The King changed the sentence 
on Lady Lisle, one of Jeffreys' victims, from burning, the penalty on 
women for treason until 1790, to execution by decapitation. There 
existed, therefore, a prerogative of the Crown to alter the details of the 
judgment of death. This prerogative was very frequently exercised in 
cases of treason in respect of the place of execution, so that there are 
examples of executions for treason both in public and in private on Tower 
Hill or within the walls of the Tower, as the case might be. The 
Sheriffs Act, 1887, has more bearing, however, on the mode of executing 
Casement than the King's prerogative. This Act provides that where 
judgment of death has been passed upon a convict the Sheriff of the 
county shall be charged with the execution of such judgment, and may 
carry such judgment into execution in any prison which is the common gaol 
of his county. 

After the execution of Casement the following statement was issued 
by the Government : 



STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON ^TH AUGUST, 1916, 
AFTER CASEMENT'S EXECUTION. 

All the circumstances in the case of Roger Casement were carefully and 
repeatedly considered by the Government before the decision was reached 
not to interfere with the sentence of the law. He was convicted and 
punished for treachery of the worst kind to the Empire he had served, and 
as a willing agent of Germany. 

The Irish rebellion resulted in much loss of life, both among soldiers 
and 1 oivilians. Casement invoked and organised German assistance to the 
insurrection. In addition, though himself for many years a British official, 
xxxviii 



Introduction. 

ke undertook the task of trying to induce soldiers of the British Army, 
prisoners in the hands of Germany, to forswear their oath of allegiance 
and join their country's enemies. Conclusive evidence has come into the 
hands of the Government since the trial that he had entered into an 
agreement with the German Government, which explicitly provided that 
the brigade which he was trying to raise from among the Irish soldier 
prisoners might be employed in Egypt against the British Crown. Those 
among the Irish soldier prisoners in Germany who resisted Casement's 
solicitations of disloyalty were subjected to treatment of exceptional 
severity by the Germans; some of them have since been exchanged as 
invalids, and have died in this country, regarding Casement as their 
murderer. 

The suggestion that Casement left Germany for the purpose of trying 
to stop the Irish rising was not raised at the trial, and is conclusively 
disproved, not only by the facts there disclosed, but by further evidence 
which has since become available. 

Another suggestion, that Casement was out of his mind, is equally 
without foundation. Materials bearing on his mental condition were 
placed at the disposal of his counsel, who did not raise the plea of insanity. 
Casement's demeanour since his arrest, and throughout and since the trial, 
gave no ground for any such defence, and indeed was sufficient to disprove it. 

DE-KNIGHTING OP CASEMENT. 

On 30th June it was announced that the King had been pleased to 
direct the issue of Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United King- 
dom degrading Sir Roger Casement, C.M.G., from the degree of Knight 
Bachelor. 

The announcement was also made on the same date that the King has 
been pleased to direct that Sir Roger Casement, Knight, shall cease to be 
a member of the most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint 
George, of which Order he was appointed a Companion in 1905, and that 
his name shall be erased from the Register of the Order. 



xxxix 



Chronological Table. 



1864, 1st September. 
1892, 31st July. 
1895, 27th June. 
1898, 29th July. 

1899-1900. 

1900, 20th August. 

1901, 6th August. 

1905, 30th June. 

1906, 13th August. 

1907, 2nd December. 

1908, 1st December. 
1911, 20th June. 
1911. 
1909-1912. 

1913, 1st August. 

1914, 4th August. 
1914, 7th October. 
1914, December. 



1915, 19th February. 

1916, 12th April. 
1916, 20th April. 

1916, 21st April 

(Friday). 

1916, 22nd April. 
1916, 21st April. 

1916, 22nd April. 

1916, 15th, 16th and 

17th May. 
1916, 26-29th June. 

1916, 30th June. 
1916, 17-18th July. 
1916, 3rd August. 
1916, 4th August. 



Roger Casement born in County Dublin. 

Enters service of Niger Coast (Oil Rivers) Protectorate. 

Appointed H.M. Consul at Lourenco Marques. 

Appointed H.M. Consul for Portuguese Possessions in West 

Africa. 
Employed on special service at Cape Town and receives the 

Queen's South African Medal. 
Transferred to Kinchassa in the Congo State. 
Appointed Consul for part of the French Congo Colony. 
MadeaC.M.G. 

Appointed Consul for State of San Paulo and Panama. 
Transferred to Para. 

Appointed Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro. 
Made a knight. 

Receives the Coronation Medal. 
Employed while Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro making 

inquiries relative to the Putumayo rubber industry. 
Retires on a pension. 

Declaration of War between the United Kingdom and Germany. 
Makes the last demand for his pension. 
Irish prisoners of war collected into a German camp at Limburg 

Lahn. 
At this time Casement is in Germany moving with freedom 

about the country. 
From this time until 19th February Casement addressed 

meetings of Irish prisoners urging them to join the Irish 

Brigade. 
Casement reported to have made a speech in which he said, 

" Now is the time for Irishmen to fight against England." 
Railway ticket taken from Berlin to Wilhelmshaven. (Found 

at Tralee on 21st April.) 
Red light seen flashing about a mile away at sea off Curraghane 

at 9.50 p.m. 
H.M.S. "Bluebell" meets the " Aud" in the neighbourhood of 

Tralee. 

" Aud" blown up and sinks near the Daunt Rock Lightship. 
Casement, Bailey, and Monteith land near Tralee. Casement 

seen on road to Ardfert at 5.15 a.m. Casement discovered 

by police in M'Kenna's Fort and taken to Ardfert Barracks. 
Casement taken to England in custody and handed over to the 

Metropolitan Police. Afterwards, until 15th May, kept in 

military custody in the Tower of London. 

Magisterial Inquiry at Bow Street Police Court and com- 
mittal for trial. 



Trial in the High Court of Justice, London, 
and sentence of death. 



Verdict of guilty 



Casement de-knighted. 

Proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Appeal dismissed. 

Casement executed in Pentonville Prison. 

Statement issued by the Government after Casement's execution. 



xl 



I.-THE TRIAL 



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, LONDON, 
MONDAY, 26TH JUNE, 1916, 



BEFORE 



THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND (VISCOUNT BEADING), 
MR. JUSTICE AVORY, 
MR. JUSTICE HORRIDGE, 
AND A JURY. 



KING'S CORONER (Mr. Leonard W. Kershaw). 



Counsel for the Grown 

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (The Right Hon. Sir Frederick 

Smith, K.C., M.P.), 
THE SOLICITOR- GENERAL (The Right Hon. Sir George Cave, 

K.C., M.P.), 
MR. A. H. BODKIN, 
MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS, 
MR. G. A. H. BRANSON, 

Instructed by SIR CHARLES W. MATHEWS, K.C.B., 
Director of Public Prosecutions. 



Counsel for the Prisoner 

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN (K.C. and Second Serjeant of the IrisfrBar), 
MR. T. ARTEMUS JONES, 
MR. J. H. MORGAN, 

Instructed by MR. G. GAVAN DUFFY, assisted by MR. MICHAEL 
FRANCIS DOYLE, of the American Bar. 



THE TRIAL. 

First Day Monday, 26th June, 1916. 

AN USHER OF THE COURT Oyez. My lords the King's Justices do 
strictly charge and command all manner of persons to keep silence, for they 
will now proceed to> the pleads of the Crown and arraignment of prisoners 
upon their lives and deaths, and all those that are bound by recognisance 
to give evidence against any of the prisoner which shall be at the bar, 
let them come forth and give their evidence, or they will forfeit their 
recognisance. God stave the King. 

The KING'S CORONER Sir Roger Casement, you stand indicted and 
charged on the presentment of the grand jury with the following offence : 
High treason, by adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere than in the 
King's realm to wit, in the Empire of Germany contrary to the Treason 
Act, 1351, 25 Edward III., statute 5, chapter 2. The particulars of offence 
alleged in the indictment are that you, Sir Roger David Casement, other- 
wise known as Sir Roger Casement, knight, on the 1st day of December, 
1914, and on divers- other days thereafter, and between that day and the 
21st April, 1916, being then to wit, on the said several days a British 
subject, and whilst on the said several days an open and public war was 
being prosecuted and carried on by the German Emperor and his subjects 
against our Lord the King and his subjects, then and on the said several 
days traitorously contriving and intending to aid and assist the said 
enemies of our Lord the King against our Lord the King and his subjects, 
did traitorously adhere to> and aid and comfort the said enemies in parts 
beyond the seas without this realm of England to wit, in the Empire of 
Germany. 

The overt acts of the said treason are as follows : 

(1) On or about the 31st December, 1914, soliciting and inciting and 
endeavouring to persuade certain persons, being British subjects and 
members of the military forces of our Lord the King, and being prisoners of 
war then imprisoned at Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany 
to wit, Michael O'Connor and others whose names are unknown to forsake 
their duty and allegiance to our Lord the King, and to join the armed 
forces of hisi said enemies, and to fight against our Lord the King and his 
subjects in the said war. 

(2) On or about the 6th day of January, 1915, soliciting and inciting 
and endeavouring to persuade certain persons, being British subjects and 
members of the military forces 1 of our Lord the King, and being prisoners 
of war then imprisoned at Limburg Lahn C'amp, in the Empire of 
Germany to wit, John Robinson and John Cronin and others whose names 
are unknown to forsake their duty and allegiance to our Lord the King, 

2 




The Right Hon. Viscount Reading, 
Lord Chief Justice of England. 



The Trial. 

and to join the armed forces of his said enemies and to fight against our 
Lord the King and his subjects! in the said war. 

(3) On or about the 19th February, 1915, soliciting and inciting and 
endeavouring to persuade certain person, being British subjects and 
members, of the military forces of our Lord the King, and being prisoners 
of war then imprisoned at Limburg Lahn Camp, in the Empire of 
Germany to wit, John Robinson, William Egan, Daniel O'Brien, and 
James Wilson, and others whose names are unknown to forsake their 
duty and allegiance to our Lord the King, and to join the armed forces of 
his said enemies and to fight against our Lord the King and his subjects 
in the said war. 

(4) In or about the months of January and February, 1915, at Limburg 
Lahn Camp, in the Empire of Germany, circulating and distributing 
and causing and procuring to be circulated and distributed to 1 and amongst 
certain persons, being British subjects and members of the military forces 
of our Lord the King, and being prisoners of war imprisoned at Limburg 
Lahn Camp aforesaid to wit, Michael O'Connor, John Robinson, John 
Cronin, William Egan, Daniel O'Brien, James Wilson, and divers others 
whose names are unknown a certain leaflet to the tenor and effect following, 
that is to say : " Irishmen, here is a chance for you to fight for Ireland. 
" You have fought for England, your country's hereditary enemy. You 
" have fought for Belgium in England's interest, though it was no more to 
" you than the Fiji Islands. Are you willing to fight for your own country 
" with a view to securing the national freedom of Ireland 1 ? With the 
<( moral and material assistance of the German Government an Irish Brigade 
" is 1 being formed. The object of the Irish Brigade shall be to fight solely 
" the cause of Ireland, and under no circumstances shall it be directed to 
"any German end. The Irish Brigade shall be formed, and shall fight 
' ' under the Irish flag alone ; the men shall wear a special distinctively 
" Irish uniform and have Irish officers. The Irish Brigade shall be 
" clothed, fed, and efficiently equipped with arms and ammunition by the 
" German Government. It will be stationed near Berlin, and be treated 
"as guests of the German Government. At the end of the war the 
" German Government undertakes to send each member of the brigade who 
' f may so desire it to the United States of America with necessary means 
" to land. The Irishmen in America are collecting money for the brigade. 

' Those men who do not join the Irish Brigade will be removed from 
"Limburg and distributed among other camps. If interested, see your 
" company commanders. Join the Irish Brigade and win Ireland's 
"independence! Remember Bachelor's Walk! God save Ireland!" 
with intent to solicit, incite, and persuade the said last-mentioned British 
subjects, being Irishmen, to forsake their duty and allegiance to our Lord 
the King, and to aid and assist his enemies in the prosecution of the said 
war against our Lord the King and his subjects 1 . 

(5) On or about the 31st December, 1914, and on diversi days there- 
after in the months of January and February, 1915, persuading and pro- 
curing certain persons being members of the military forces of our Lord 
the King to wit, Daniel Julian Bailey, one Quinless, one O'Callaghan, one 
Keogh, one Cavanagh, one Greer, and one Soanlan, and divers other 
whose names are unknown to the number of about fifty, the said persons 
being prisoners of war then imprisoned in Limburg Lahn Cainp, in the 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Empire of Germany, to forsake their allegiance to our Lord the King, and 
to join the armed forces of his said enemies with a view to fight against 
our Lord the King and his subjects in the said war. 

(6) On or about the 12th day of April, 1916, setting forth from the 
Empire of Germany as a member of a warlike and hostile expedition under- 
taken and equipped by the said enemies of our Lord the King, having for 
its object the introduction into and landing on the coast of Ireland of arms 
and ammunition intended for use in the prosecution of the said war by the 
said enemies against our Lord the King and his subjects. 

Sir Roger David Casement, how saith you, do you plead guilty or not 
guilty to the charge of high treason? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Before the prisoner pleads I, on his behalf, move to 
quash the indictment on the ground that no offence known to the law is 
disclosed by the indictment as framed. I would not take this course, in 
view of the decision in The King v. Lynch, had I not grounds upon which 
I can point out to your lordships that at the present time the prisoner 
stands in a totally different position from the position of the prisoner at the 
time of The King v. Lynch, and that the reasons why a motion to quash 
the indictment would not have been heard in The King v. Lynch have 
to-day been altered both by statute, by circumstances, and by the nature 
of the present indictment, which is not the same as that in The King v. 
Lynch. At the time of The King v. Lynch motion in arrest of judgment 
might have been an opportunity upon which the indictment could be 
objected to writ of error lay, for the indictment being part of the record 
there was the error on the face of the record. Both those remedies for 
the prisoner have, at all events, been altered, and so far as they then 
existed are no longer available to him. Furthermore, my lords, the 
indictment in the present case differs from The King v. Lynch in this most 
material particular. Taking the indictment as a whole, both the offences 
charged, the particulars, and the overt acts alleged, there is not anywhere 
in the indictment an allegation of any act done anywhere within the King's 
dominions I am not speaking merely of within the realm, but within any 
territory in which His Majesty claims dominion of any kind and both the 

overt acts and the offences here charged are entirely laid 

[Their lordships conferred.] 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Sullivan, I have no doubt you have con- 
sidered the authorities which were cited both in The King v. Lynch and 
in a number of earlier cases in which it is said by great judges that a 
motion to quash ought not to be made at this period, at any rate, in 
cases of treason, cases of great magnitude as they are called; you obviously 
had those in mind because of what you said just now. The same observa- 
tions would apply in the present case as in The King v. Lynch, although 
I agree the procedure would be different because of the Criminal Appeal 
Act of 1907." 

Mr. SULLIVAN I quite appreciate what your lordship means. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That you had in mind when you made the 
observation you did. It is equally open to you, and you are not prejudiced 
in any way by raising this point at the end of the case for the prosecution, 
on which you may have other points to submit ; then one can see whether 
upon your submission any case has been made out in law against the 
prisoner upon this indictment, which will enable you to argue this point. 
4 



The Trial. 

The Court thinks that that is the more convenient way of dealing with it. 
Of course it is open to the Attorney- General to raise the objection at 
once, that he objects to the motion to quash at the moment, and that it 
should be done later ; but although that has not been done, we think it is 
a more convenient course that it should be taken at the end of the case 
for the prosecution unless you, Mr. Attorney, say anything to the contrary. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No, I respectfully assent to what your lord- 
ship says. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You shall not be prejudiced in any way, Mr. 
Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I thank you, my lord. 

The KING'S CORONER Sir Roger David Casement, how say you, do 
you plead guilty or not guilty to the high treason alleged in the indictment? 

Sir ROGER CASEMENT Not guilty. 

The KING'S CORONER Sir Roger Casement, have you been served ten 
days at least since with a copy of the indictment, a list of the witnesses, 
and copies of the panel of the jury? 

Sir ROGER CASEMENT I have. 

The CHIEF CLERK OP THE CROWN OFFIC?E Prisoner at the bar, these 
good men that you shall now hear called and personally appear are the 
jurors who are to pass between our Sovereign Lord the King and you 
upon your trial of life and death; if therefore you will challenge them or 
any of them you must challenge them as they come to the book to be 
eworn, and before they are sworn, and you shall be heard. 

The following jurors, not having been challenged, 

Frederick Thomas Wheeler, 18 Chambers Lane, Willesden, Shipping Clerk, 

Ernest William West, 10 Balmoral Road, Willesden, Schoolmaster, 

John Charles Watts, 37 Buchanan Gardens, Willesden, Warehouseman, 

Albert John Abbott, 68 Caversham Avenue, Palmers Green, N., Clerk, 

Herbert James Scoble, 41 Ravensdale Road, Hackney, Clerk, 

Richard Charles Scantlebury, 2 Trederwen Road, Hackney, Agent, 

Albert George Scopes, 261 Mare Street, Hackney, Leather Merchant, 

John Burden, 70 Drakefield Road, Balham, Wandsworth, Mechanical Engineer, 

William Bowers Card, 64 Northfield Avenue, Baling, Baker, 

William Cole, 26 Coulson Street, Chelsea, Coachman, 

Hyman Saunders, 68 Amhurst Road, Hackney, Tailor, and 

Albert Sydney Ansley, 42 Osborne Road, Palmers Green, Bank Clerk, 

were each separately sworn in the following terms : 

' ' You shall well and truly try and true deliverance make between 

" our Sovereign Lord the King and the prisoner at the bar 

" whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give 

" according to the evidence. So help you God." 

The USHER If any one can inform my lords the King's Justices, 

or the King's Attorney-General, ere this inquest be now taken between 

our Sovereign Lord the King and the prisoner at the bar, of any treason, 

murder, felony, or misdemeanour committed or done by him, let them 

come .forth and they shall be heard ; for the prisoner stands at the bar 

upon his deliverance; and all others that are bound by recognisances to 

give evidence against the prisoner at the bar, come forth and give evidence, 

or else you forfeit your recognisances. 

The KING'S CORONER Gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner stands 
indicted by the name of Sir Roger David Casement, and is charged with 

5 



Sir Roger Casement. 



the following offence : " High treason by adhering to the King's enemies 
"elsewhere than in the King's realm to wit, in the Empire of Germany 
" contrary to the Treason Act, 1351 (25 Edward III., stat. 5, cap. 2)." 
The particulars of the offence are that Sir Roger David Casement, knight, 
on the 1st day of December, 1914, and on divers other days thereafter, 
and between that day and the 2Lst of April, 1916, being then to wit, 
on the said several days a British subject, and whilst on the said several 
days an open and public war was being prosecuted and carried on by the 
German Emperor and his subjects against our Lord the King and his 
subjects, then and on the said several days traitorously contriving and 
intending to aid and assist the said enemies of our Lord the King against 
our Lord the King and his subjects, did traitorously adhere to and aid 
and comfort the said enemies in parts beyond the seas without this realm 
of England, to wit, in the Empire of Germany. The indictment sets out 
the overt acts that are alleged of that treason. Upon that indictment the 
prisoner hath been arraigned, and upon his arraignment he has pleaded 
that he is not guilty. Your charge therefore is to inquire whether he be 
guilty or not guilty upon that indictment and to hearken to the evidence. 



Opening Speech for Prosecution. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL May it please your lordships : gentlemen of 
the jury, I appear with my learned friends on behalf of the Crown to 
support the charge of high treason without the realm against the prisoner 
at the bar, who has the advantage of being defended by my learned 
friends, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Artemus Jones, and Mr. Morgan. 

The charge upon which the prisoner is arraigned is a very grave 
one. The law knows none graver. This inquiry will therefore receive, as 
it deserves and requires, your close and constant attention. 

The law of treason, gentlemen, is principally founded upon a statute 
as old as the reign of King Edward III. Treason is the doing or design- 
ing anything which would lead to the death, bodily harm, or restraint of 
the King, levying war against him within the realm, or adhering to his 
enemies within or without the realm. It is alleged here by the Crown 
that the prisoner has been guilty of this most heinous crime, that he has 
adhered to the King's enemies and has attempted to seduce His Majesty's 
soldiers from their allegiance. It will be for you to consider, when you 
know all the facts, whether the Crown has proved these allegations, and 
whether, if they be proved, there is any circumstance of extenuation 
which can be urged ; or whether, upon the other hand, the crimes which 
it is alleged the prisoner has committed are aggravated by the relation- 
ship in which he formerly stood to the Sovereign whom he has betrayed 
and the country at which he has struck. 

It is therefore desirable that you should hear in some detail what 
has been the career of the prisoner. He is an able and cultivated man, 
versed in affairs and experienced in political matters. He was not, as you 
will hear, a life-long rebel against England, and all that England stood 
for, as others well known in Irish history have been. Let me inform you, 
as briefly as I can, of the principal stages in a career which has not been 
without public distinction, and which was directed it may be remembered 
even now to his credit not to the destruction of the power of this great 
Empire, but to its consolidation and development. 

The prisoner was born in County Dublin on 1st September in the year 
1864. He entered the service of the Niger Coast (Oil Rivers) Protectorate 
on 31st July, 1892, at the age of twenty-eight. He was appointed three 
years later, on 27th June, 1895, to be Her Majesty's Consul in the 
Portuguese Province of Louren9o Marques, with a residence at Lourengo 
Marques. He continued in this employment for three years, and on 29th 
July, 1898, he became Consul for the Portuguese Possessions in West 
Africa, south of the Gulf of Guinea. He was employed on special service 
at Cape Town during the war in South Africa, from 1899 to 1900; and he 
received, when the hostilities ended, the Queen's South African medal. 
He did not refuse this decoration for assistance rendered to England 

7 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

during this war, although it was a war of which many Irishmen pro- 
foundly disapproved, and we may perhaps therefore reasonably assume 
that at the age of thirty-six the crimes and delinquencies of this Empire 
had not engaged his attention, or at least had not conquered his intelli- 
gence. On 20th August, 1900, he was transferred to Kinchassa, in the 
Congo State; and he was appointed, in addition, on 6th August, 1901, 
to be Consul for part of the French Congo Colony. From 31st December, 
1904, he was seconded for one year; and afterwards for six months from 
31st December, 1905. On 30th June, 1905, he was made a C.M.G., a 
recognition of his public services which he did not disdain. He was 
appointed Consul for the States of San Paulo and Parana, with a residence 
at Santos, on 13th August, 1906. On 2nd December, 1907, he was trans- 
ferred to Para; and on the let December, 1908, he was promoted to be 
Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro. On 20th June, 1911, he was made 
a, knight. In 1911, the same year, he received the Coronation medal. 
The State of Goyaz was added to the district of the Consul- General at 
Rio de Janeiro ; and a new commission was issued to him on 2nd December, 
1912. From 1909 to 1912 he was employed, while titular Consul-General 
at Rio de Janeiro, in making certain inquiries relative to the rubber 
industry. On 1st August, 1913, after, as the facts which I have stated 
show, a considerable career of public usefulness, he was retired on a 
pension. 

Gentlemen, this pension had been honourably earned, and it would 
therefore be neither necessary nor proper to refer to it were it not for 
the sinister and wicked activities of the period which I am approaching. 
But it is necessary now to observe what quality of conduct the prisoner 
judged in his conscience to be consistent with the receipt of a pension 
from this country. Government pensions are paid quarterly, and on each 
occasion must be formally claimed. The claim is made by a statutory- 
declaration which eets out the services for which the pension was awarded 
and the amount claimed. The prisoner made five such declarations, the 
first on 2nd October, 1913, and the last on 7th October, 19H. They 
are in the possession of the Crown and will be produced. No payment 
has been made since the last date, nor would it have been made if 
claimed, as by that time the Treasury had directed, for reasons which 
you will understand, that this pension should cease to be paid. 

I informed you that on 20th June, 1911, he received the honour of 
knighthood, and it is perhaps worth while, having regard to the singular 
later developments of his career, to read the letter, dated 19th June, 
1911, in which he replied to the notification communicated to him by 
Sir Edward Grey of His Majesty's intention to bestow a knighthood 
upon him. He wrote, this enemy of England, this friend of Germany, 
this extreme and irreconcilable patriot, in the following terms : 

The Savoy, Den ham, Bucks. 
Dear Sir Edward Grey, 

I find it very hard to choose the words in which to make 

acknowledgment of the honour done me by the King. I am much moved at the 
proof of confidence and appreciation of my service on the Putumayo conveyed to 
me by your letter, wherein you tell me that the King had been graciously pleased 
upon your recommendation to confer upon me the honour of knighthood. I am, 
8 



Opening Speech for Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

indeed, grateful to you for this signal assurance of your personal esteem and support. 
I am very deeply sensible of the honour done to me by His Majesty. I would beg 
that my humble duty might be presented to His Majesty when you may do me the 
honour to convey to him my deep appreciation of the honour he has been so 
graciously pleased to confer upon me. 

1 am, dear Sir Edward, 

Yours sincerely, 

ROGER CASEMENT. 

Gentlemen, I read that letter because you ought to remember that 
those were the feelings on the 19th June, 1911, towards the country 
which he had served for so long, and towards the Sovereign of that 
country, of a man of mature years he was, I think, forty -seven years old 
at the time that letter was written a man who had had nineteen years' 
experience of the methods of government of this country, in which indeed 
he had, and not without credit, borne a part. Such a man writes in 
terms of gratitude, a little unusual, perhaps, in their warmth, and in the 
language almost of a courtier, to express his pleasure at the title with 
which his Sovereign had rewarded his career. And he presents his humble 
duty to the King, and he begs that his deep appreciation of the gracious 
honour may be expressed to His Majesty. And this was in 1911. The 
history of the relations of England and Ireland up to that date were as 
well known then as they are to-day. The controversies, bitter and 
protracted, often tragic, springing from those relations were either the 
commonplaces of contemporary politics, or they filled the better known 
pages of our elementary histories. And well understanding these con- 
troversies, fully versed in the wrongs of which Irishmen were fruitful in 
complaint, knowing England's ideals of government well for at the out- 
posts of Empire he had carried them out he sends his humble duty to his 
Sovereign. What occurred between 1911 and 1914 to affect and corrupt 
the prisoner's mind I cannot tell you, for I do not know. I only know 
of one difference. The Sovereign of the country to whom his humble 
duty was sent in 1911 was in that year the ruler of a great and wealthy 
nation, unequalled in resources, living at peace, unassailed, and it almost 
seemed una,ssailable. In 1914 this same nation was struggling for its 
possessions, for its honour, for its very existence in the most prodigious war 
which has ever tested human fortitude. To the Sovereign of that country 
in the hour of its unchallenged greatness he sends his humble duty. It will 
be my task now to acquaint you with the method in which he carried out his 
humble duty in times dark enough to test the value of the unsolicited pro- 
fessions he was so forward in making. 

I have informed you, gentlemen, in the most general outline of the 
antecedents of the prisoner, as those antecedents are known to the Crown. 
I cannot describe his movements after the outbreak of war until the 
happening of certain events to which it now becomes necessary to refer. I 
cannot, I say, describe his movements, but I have told you that, and you 
will recollect this date, the last demand for his 1 pension was dated 7th 
October, 1914. Between the months of September and December, 1914, 
the fortunes of the struggle in France were such that a large number of 
British soldiers were taken captive by the enemy, and amongst those 

9 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

prisoners were many brave Irish soldiers. These soldiers taken, as I said, 
into captivity were distributed, apparently quite normally in the month of 
December, 1914, among various prisons in Germany, and they were treated 
neither worse nor better than other prisoners' captured from the British 
Expeditionary Force. But in or about the month of December, 1914, 
prisoners of war belonging to various- Irish regiments were removed from 
the different camps in which they were then imprisoned, and were collected 
into a large camp at Limburg Lahn. And it became evident from what 
followed that they were so collected for a special purpose, which had been 
the result of consideration and calculation on the part of the German 
Government. 

At that time the prisoner was in Germany, moving with freedom about 
the country, apparently an honoured guest of the German nation. The 
full story of the circumstances under which he went to Germany it is; not in 
my power to tell. But it is evident that the part he was to play was 
that of a man willing, and it was hoped able, to seduce from their allegiance 
-to the King, their Sovereign and his, the Irish prisoners of war who, 
after fighting valiantly for the Empire, had been captured, as so many 
brave soldiers of all nations have been captured in this war. One can 
imagine the type of these private soldiers, aliens and prisoners, in an 
enemy country. We may perhaps surmise from the very attempt now to 
be described that they were simple, unlettered men, unlikely, it may have 
been thought, to resist a specious appeal. These men were collected by 
the Germans for the purpose of listening to addresses or lectures on Irish 
history and other matters from the prisoner, who, like themselves, had 
embraced the service and eaten the bread of this country. They were 
assembled at Limburg, on more than one occasion, and were then 
addressed collectively, and in some cases individually, by Casement, who 
moved about the camp freely, and with the full knowledge and approval 
of the Germans. The Germans, as you know, are very expert in this 
species of activity. Ireland has been disaffected. Here there was a 
fruitful soil for seduction. Even then it may be that the scheme of an 
eventual landing in Ireland had been conceived by this thoroughly resource- 
ful and unscrupulous people. The Irish prisoners of war were there 
emotional, excitable, uninformed, the easy victims, it was hoped, of 
seduction. Nor was the seducer lacking; the letter- writer of 1911 was 
to be tested. 

Whether it entered his head that he was exposing poor men, his 
inferiors in education, age, and knowledge of the world, to the penalties of 
high treason I cannot tell you, for I do not know. Whether he conceived of 
the innocent blood which was so soon to flow in the unhappy country to 
which he professed devotion I cannot tell you, for I do not know. But 
I shall be in a position to call before you evidence which will show that 
between the middle of December, 1914, and 19th February, 1915, the 
prisoner repeatedly addressed these prisoners of war. I do not think it 
likely that he dwelt upon hisi own connection with the country which had 
afforded him a career, which had decorated him with a title, and from 
which he had accepted a pension. I suspect he did not inform them that 
10 



Opening Speech for Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

three years before he had sent his humble duty to the Sovereign whose 
soldiers while their heart were heavy with captivity he was attempting 
to seduce and to corrupt. I cannot give you a full description of his 
rhetoric. I can only supply such fragments of his appeals as happened 
to linger in the minds of those whose evidence is available for the Crown. 
But I pause very deliberately to say that if it be possible to give an ex- 
planation of the original journey of the prisoner to Germany, which is 
consistent with the duty which he owed, and which he had so recently 
professed to his Sovereign and his country, I hope that his explanation 
will be put forward by the very experienced counsel by whom he has the 
advantage of being defended. But whether or not his original journey to 
Germany is a step which can be explained, justified, or reconciled with his 
admitted allegiance, it must, I think, be evident that a wholly different 
class of considerations arises when one considers the quality of his acts 1 in 
relation to these Irish prisoners. 

He introduced himself to them such was the tenor of his address on 
more than one occasion as " Sir Roger Casement, the organiser of the 
"Irish Volunteers." He stated that he was forming an Irish Brigade, 
and he invited all the Irish prisoners of war to join it. He pointed out 
repeatedly, and with emphasis, that in his opinion everything was to be 
gained for Ireland by Germany winning the war; and that the Irish 
soldiers who were listening to his addresses had the best opportunity they 
had ever had of striking a blow for Ireland by entering the service of 
the enemies of this country. He said that those who joined the Irish 
Brigade would be sent to Berlin; they would become the guests of the 
German Government; and in the event of Germany winning a sea battle 
he (the speaker) would land a brigade in Ireland to defend the country 
against the enemy England. And that in the event of Germany losing the 
war either he or the Imperial German Government would give each man in 
the brigade a bonus 1 of from 10 to 20, with a free passage to America- 
Such were the temptations unfolded to his simple listeners by the man 
who reconciled it with his duty to address such persuasions to men in the 
straits, the bewilderment, and perhaps the despair in which these prisoners 
then were. Gentlemen, to the honour of Ireland, let it be recorded that 
the vast majority of the Irish, prisoners treated the rhetoric, and the 
persuasions, and the corruptions of the prisoner with contempt. He was 
received with hisses, and was on at least one occasion driven from the 
oamp. The Munster Fusiliers were particularly prominent in their loyal 
resentment of the treacherous proposals made to them. One private in 
that regiment actually struck, so it isi recorded, the prisoner, who was 
saved from further violence by the intervention of an escort of Prussian 
Guards, who had been assigned to him for his protection by a nation which 
thinks of everything. 

Those Irish prisoners who unfavourably received the proposals made 
to them by Casement were punished by a reduction in their rations. Two 
men, Robinson and O'Brien, who will be called before you, and who refused 
to join the Irish Brigade, were transferred to another camp for punishment, 
and were then put upon short rations. The few men who were seduced 
from their allegiance by the arguments addressed to them by the prisoner 
were rewarded by being given a green uniform with a harp and shamrock 

11 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

worked upon it, by unusually liberal rations, both, in quality and in quantity, 
and by the concession of greater leisure and liberty. Amongst the Irish 
prisoners in Limburg at this time was a man called Bailey. Bailey, of 
whom you will hear more, was observed by witnesses who will be called 
before you to be wearing this green uniform with the harp upon the 
collar and upon the cap, and to be carrying side-arms after the German 
fashion. Evidence will be offered to you that Bailey joined the so-called 
Irish Brigade. He was, I think, at once promoted to the rank of sergeant 
in that brigade by the Germans, who were assisting and encouraging for 
their own purposes the formation of the brigade. The witnesses to these 
acts of high treason and of treachery include Private Oonin, Royal 
Munster Fusiliers; William Egan, lance-corporal, Royal Irish Rifles; 
Corporal Michael O'Connor, Royal Irish Rifles; Private James Wilson, 
Dublin Fusiliers; Private William Dooley, Royal Irish Regiment; Trooper 
Daniel O'Brien, 19th Hussars; Corporal John Robinson, Royal Army 
Medical Corps; Private Michael Moore, Royal Army Medical Corps; 
Private John Neill, 2nd Battalion 18th Royal Irish Regiment. All these 
men with one exception were wounded, and have since been exchanged, and 
owing to the accident of their exchange they are available here at the dis- 
posal of the Crown to give evidence in order to establish the occurrences 
which in general outline I have indicated to you. 

At this point, gentlemen, there is again a hiatus in the information 
which the Crown is in a position to lay before the Court. I have said 
enough to indicate to you that in his addresses to the prisoners Casement 
was in the habit of holding out, as the military adventure for which this 
brigade was destined, a landing in Ireland, which was described as an 
attempt to free Ireland from the English enemy ; and it is not necessary 
for me to do more at this stage than to point out that the Germans were 
evidently not concerned to use Casement for the purpose of forming a 
brigade in order to add one more to the uniforms, . already considerable in 
number, in the German Army. The inference will probably be drawn by 
jou that it was intended then that such men as could be seduced from 
their allegiance should form the first fruits of a body which should be 
actually used for the purpose of raising armed insurrection in Ireland 
against the forces of the Crown, and of acting as a trained and instructed 
nucleus round which the disaffected section of the population might rally 
and grow. 

The treason which is charged against the prisoner is the treason which 
consists of adherence to the King's enemies in the enemy country, and in 
relation to that treason evidence will be given to you of many overt acts ; 
of the attempt to seduce, and in some cases of the actual seduction of 
His Majesty's soldiers from loyal allegiance to His Majesty; the plotting 
and contriving to effect a hostile landing, with stores and arms, and with 
armed men in His Majesty's dominions. 

Gentlemen, I have said as much as is necessary at this stage to 
inform you of the treasonable activities of the prisoner in Germany. We 
must now pass to that unhappy country which has been the victim in its 
history of so many cruel and cynical conspiracies, but surely never of a 
conspiracy more cruel and more cynical than this. 
12 



Opening Speech for Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

The scene of the events presently to be described was on the Kerry 
coast near Tralee Bay, on a lonely and wind-swept shore, the home of a 
scanty fisher population and of a few small farmers. On this shore, on 
Thursday night, 20th April, 1916, at 9.50 p.m., a labourer, called Hussey, 
looking oceanwards, saw a red light flashing about a mile away at sea off 
Curraghane a light which it is possible was not unconnected with the 
happenings afterwards. And contemporaneously, or almost contem- 
poraneously, with the landing, of which I shall say a word later, of the 
prisoner and his companions, a vessel, carrying arms, approached Tralee 
in circumstances which will satisfy you, I apprehend, that those on board 
that vessel carrying arms were taking part in a common adventure with 
the prisoner and his party, who were conveyed to this country by other 
means, which you will, I anticipate, conclude were also of German origin. 

The enterprise of the prisoner and his; friends had, happily, not 
eluded the vigilance of the Navy. His Majesty's vessel, the " Bluebell," 
had become generally aware that a hostile scheme was being attempted, 
and if I describe to you what was observed by those on board the sloop 
" Bluebell " in relation to the vessel carrying arms, you will be in a 
position to appreciate the general character of the plan which was formed 
in order to give effect to the high treason conceived and commenced on 
the soil of Germany. The " Bluebell," on 21st April (Good Friday), 
was patrolling in the neighbourhood of Tralee when she sighted a suspicious 
ship flying the Norwegian ensign, and with four Norwegian ensigns 
painted forward and aft on each side of the vessel. The captain of the 
" Bluebell " hoisted a signal demanding the name of the apparently Nor- 
wegian vessel, and making inquiry about her destination. The reply was 
given that she was the " Aud," of Bergen, bound for Genoa. The 
captain of the " Bluebell " informed the vessel that she must follow the 
"Bluebell " to harbour. The captain of the " Aud " answered and it 
was noticed that he spoke in broken English " Where are you taking 
"me to? " The " Bluebell " thereupon intimated that she would go 
ahead and that the " Aud " was to follow immediately after. The 
" Bluebell " then proceeded to go ahead, but the " Aud " remained with- 
out moving, and a shot was accordingly fired across her bows. She then 
asked, " What am I to do? " and was again ordered to follow, and there- 
after she did follow. She was escorted by the " Bluebell " without further 
trouble or incident until next morning, when they passed abreast of the 
lighthouse not far from Queenstown. Then the " Aud " hoisted a signal, 
' Where am I to anchor upon arriving in harbour? " She was informed 
that she was to await orders, but meanwhile to continue to follow the 
" Bluebell." On nearing the Daunt lightship the " Bluebell " headed 
for the harbour and the " Aud " stopped her engines. The " Bluebell " 
went back to her, and, when about a cable's length away, those on board 
the " Bluebell " saw a small cloud of white smoke issuing from the star- 
board side of her after-hold. At the same time two German ensigns were 
broken, at her mast and two boats were lowered, one from the port side 
and the other from the starboard side. The " Bluebell " fired one round 
across the bows of the (t Aud," and thereupon the boats hoisted two flags 
of truce, and the men put up their hands. They were then taken 
prisoners on board the " Bluebell," and placed under armed guard. 

13 




Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

These men were German bluejackets, doubtless a picked crew, nine 
sailors and three officers. The " Aud " sank almost immediately after- 
wards, about a mile and a quarter S.S.E. of the Daunt Rock lightship. 
Since then divers have ascertained that her cargo consisted of rifles, not 
German rifles, but Russian rifles of the 1905 pattern. 

Gentlemen, you will not forget that, so far as it is proper in affairs 
of this kind to connect these matters by inference, we have established 
that the prisoner in Germany was attempting to seduce Irish soldiers 
from their allegiance with the object of forming a brigade which, or some 
of whose members, were to take part in an insurrection in Ireland. We 
shall find the prisoner Bailey a member of this brigade, and a man called 
Monteith, as to whom I can give little information to the Court, and 
who has avoided arrest we shall find them being conveyed evidently with 
a definite method and purpose, but by an agency which I cannot explain to 
you, to Ireland. We find contemporaneously a German vessel, which has 
taken every means of disguising her German character, approaching the 
shores of Ireland with considerable quantities of rifles on board. And 
the association between these various events is apparent and needs no 
labouring. 

I will continue now the local story. At about four o'clock on the 
morning of Good Friday, on which these men must have landed at 
Tralee, a boat was found a few yards from the shore by one, John 
McCarthy, a farmer living at Curraghane. In the boat was a dagger, 
and at the same time McCarthy found in the sand a tin box containing 
pistol ammunition. There were found subsequently, also buried in the 
sand close by or in the neighbourhood, three Mauser pistols, two handbags 
containing pistol ammunition, several maps of Ireland foreign in origin, 
a flash lamp, a large flag, two life-belts, and three coats. The number 
of the coats supports other evidence to the effect that the party consisted 
of three men. In the pocket of one of the coats there was found a 
railway ticket from Berlin to Wilhelmshaven, dated 12th April, 1916. 
McCarthy, struck in a neighbourhood in which unusual incidents are rare 
by the discoveries which he had made, carried his inquiries a little further, 
and he then noticed the footprints of three men leading from the shore 
towards his house, and continuing through his yard to a stile leading in 
the direction of Ardfert. 

At about a quarter-past five on the same morning three men, of whom 
one has been identified as the prisoner, were seen by Mary Gorman, a 
farm servant, passing along the road, also in the direction of Ardfert. 
The police were informed, and several officers, including Sergeant Hearne 
and Constable Riley, searched the neighbourhood, and in what is known 
locally as M'Kenna'is Fort the prisoner was found to be in hiding. 
M'Kenna's Fort is called a fort; but I am informed by those who have 
seen it that it is not, as one might understand from the word " fort," 
so much an edifice above as an excavation below the ground, affording 
good cover for a man who* wished to lie hid. The prisoner gave his name, 
on being challenged, as Richard Morton, of Denham, in Buckingham. 
This was the address from which the letter of gratitude to Sir Edward 
Grey had been written. He described himself to the police as an author. 
He was asked what he had written. He replied he had written " The 
14 



PreuBisch Hessische Staatseisenbahnen. 

Bettkarte Nr.0113' 

Fri Berlin Stadtb. * 

WilhelmshaTen 



Zug D 6/D 146/D 112/D 122 

(ab Friedriebstr. 9^ Nm.) 

in der Nacht 






Wagen Nr. 
Platz Nr. ........ 

GHiltig fur ................ . ..................... ... ........ .... ...... J 

r. Klasse. Preis: 10,00 M 

Yormerkungsgb. ? 50 HI 

Zusammen: iO,50M 

Nur gliltig in Yerbindtmg mit eineia Fahraasweis 
(. 



The Railway Ticket from Berlin 
to Wilhelmshaven. 



i t 



Opening Speech for Prosecution. 

Attorney-General 

" Life of St. Brendon." He said lie had come to Kerry from Dublin; 
had arrived at Mount Brandon on the 19th, had left there on the 20th, 
had slept at a farmhouse close by, and that he intended to go to Tralee. 
All these statements were false. He was then taken to Ardfert Barracks. 
On the way to the barracks he was seen by a boy named Martin 
Collins to drop a paper from his coat. The paper was subsequently 
picked up, and it was found to be a code. It is not necessary that I 
should read the whole of this code it is a lengthy document providing 
for many contingencies but it is, I think, convenient that I should call 
attention to one or two of its terms which throw a light on the character, 
object, and scope of the prisoner's adventure. It contained such contem- 
plated messages as the following: " Await further instructions. Await 
' favourable opportunity. Send agent at once. Proposal accepted. 
1 Proposal received. Please answer by cablegram. Have decided to stay. 
1 Communication again possible. Railway communications have been 
' stopped. Our men are at . Further ammunition is 

' needed. Further rifles are needed. How many rifles will you send us? 
' How much ammunition will you send us ? Will send plan about land- 
' ing on . Await details about sending on 

' Send another ship to Preparations are made about 

Send rifles and ammunition to . Cannons 

and plenty of ammunition are needed. Send them to . Send 

more explosives to . Send a vessel if possible.'' 

Such, gentlemen, were the communications which it was expected 
by the prisoner and his German friends that the adventure in which he 
was engaged might require to pass between him and them. We are now 
in a position to connect this landing quite simply, quite clearly, and quite 
inevitably with the acts of seduction and the treasonable plans which were 
outlined in Germany. The Irish Brigade was to fight in Ireland. The 
prisoner attempts a landing with confederates and arms, and he carries 
a code which enables him to ask for another ship, for rifles and ammuni- 
tion, for cannon and plenty of ammunition, and for more explosives. 

At Ardfert Barracks the prisoner was charged with landing arms 
and ammunition in County Kerry. He replied by asking whether he 
might have legal assistance. On the 22nd April he was brought to Eng- 
land in custody and handed over to Inspector Sandercock, of the Metro- 
politan Police, to whom he made the statement: "I am Sir Roger 
" Casement, and the only person to whom I have disclosed my identity 
" is a priest in Tralee, Ireland." 

Such, gentlemen, in a general outline, is the case which the Crown 
undertakes! to prove and upon which the Crown relies. I have, I hope, 
outlined these facts without heat and without feeling. Neither in my 
position would be proper, and fortunately neither is required. Rhetoric 
would be misplaced, for the proved facts are more eloquent than words. 
The prisoner, blinded by a hatred to this country, as malignant in quality 
as it was sudden in origin, ha played a desperate hazard. He has played 
it and he has lost it. To'-day the forfeit is claimed. 



15 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Evidence for the Prosecution. 

JOHN ANTHONY CECIL TILLEY, C.B., examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL 
I am a chief clerk at the Foreign Office. I produce a letter, dated 19th 
June, 1911, signed " Roger Casement," and addressed to Sir Edward Grey, 
from the Savoy, Denham, Bucks. I also produce from the records of the 
Foreign Office an official history of Sir Roger Casement exhibit No. 33. 
That history is correct, and it describes Sir Roger Casement's career as it 
appears on the records of the Foreign Office. Sir Roger Casement was 
in receipt of a pension which was paid quarterly. The last payment was 
made on 30th September, 1914. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have no questions. 

JOHN RICHARD COLE, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am acting senior 
examiner in H.M. Paymaster-General's Office, Whitehall. Government 
pensions are payable from that office. Sir Roger Casement was in 
receipt of a pension payable through that office. It is the practice for 
the person in receipt of a pension to make a claim for the pension quarter 
by quarter, and to sign a receipt on its being paid. The amount of Sir 
Roger Casement's annual pension was 421 13s. 4d., payable quarterly, less 
income tax. I produce five receipts, each of which purports to be signed 
by Sir Roger Casement, and ranging between October, 1913, and October, 
1914. The last is dated 7th October, 1914. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN I notice the date is changed on 
the last receipt. Did you receive it in advance of the date becoming due? 
It is claimed for the September quarter, and, of course, it could not be 
paid till Sir Roger claimed it. 

What I am aiming at is this. Would these receipts be sent out from 
time to time in advance of their becoming due? They were sent out in 
blank except for the amount in figures. 

The date? There is no date on them. 

I take it you did not receive it yourself ? No, the bank gets the money. 

When did this first come into your possession? In October, the last 
voucher. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Let us understand what happens. There 
are forms which are sent out without date? Quite so. 

Then the recipient of the pension fills in the date and pays it into his 
bank? Quite so. 

The bank pays it and it comes to you? Yes. 

And you get the receipt with the date? Yes, and we keep it. 

JOHN CRONIN, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I live at 2 Carroll's 
Place, John Street, Cork. When the war broke out I was a private in 
the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Munster Fusiliers. I was sent to France, 
and I landed in that country on 13th August, 1914. On 27th August I 
was wounded and made prisoner at a place called Etreux. I remained 
there for a time, and then I was sent to Sennelager Camp in Germany. 
From there I was sent to Wesel Hospital, where I remained till 7th 
December, 1914, and then I went to the Munster Prison Camp, where there 
16 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Cronin 

were about twenty-one Irish prisoners. The Irish prisoners were in a 
separate room from the other British prisoners. I was moved on 22nd 
December, 1914, from that camp to Limburg. The twenty-one Irish 
prisoners who were with me at the Munster Camp were also removed to 
the Limburg Camp. There were over 2000 other prisoners at Limburg 
when I got there I think the total number was about 2400. They were 
all supposed to be Irish, and, judging from those I spoke to, they were 
Irish. I spoke to nearly every man in the camp. 

Did you see anybody there besides the prisoners and the Germans 
who were in charge? I did. 

Whom did you see ? The prisoner in the dock, whom I now recognise. 
I first saw him in the camp about a week after I got there. He was 
dressed in civilian clothes, and was going round the camp with papers. 
One of the papers was called The Gaelic American, and another was called 
The Continental Times. 

Did he go where he liked, or was he under restraint? He could go 
where he liked. 

Did he seem to be in charge of any one ? No, he had the full privilege 
to go where he liked. That day when I first saw him I heard him speak to 
seventy or eighty of us in a crowd. He came up to us and addressed us, 
and introduced himself to us. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He said that he was going to form an 
Irish Brigade, and he said, " Why live any longer in hunger and misery in 
" this camp when you can better yourselves by joining the Irish Brigade 
' ' which I am going to form ; you will be sent to Berlin as the guests of the 

" German Government." 
Examination continued Did he say what this Irish Brigade was to 
do? He said in the event of Germany winning a sea battle he would land 
them in Ireland, and Ireland would equip them. 

What were they to do in Ireland? Free Ireland. 

Did he say who they were to fight against? Against England. 

Did he say what would happen to them if Germany did not win 1 They 
would be sent to America; they would get 10 or 20 pocket money and 
a free passage. I have told the jury now what I remember of the speech 
he made on the first occasion when I saw him. He was asked who he was, 
and he said that he was Sir Roger Casement, the organiser of the Irish 
National Volunteer movement. I saw him at the camp on several occa- 
sions after, but I did not go near him, and I therefore did not hear again 
what he said. When I knew what he was about I avoided him. 

You talked about Sir Roger Casement having those papers with him. 
Did any one give you these papers? The German authorities sent them 
into the rooms that is, The Continental Times and The Gaelic American, 
and also a little book, " Crimes Against Ireland," written by Casement. I 
read this literature, but I did not bring away any of these papers or the 
book with me as we were not allowed. We were searched when we left. 

What was the book about? (Question objected to. Objection sus- 
tained.) 

Shown exhibit 4, being address headed " Irishmen " I saw a paper 
like that in Limburg Camp. This document was sent down to us from those 
people who joined the Irish Brigade. There were four of them posted 
c 17 



Sir Roger Casement. 



John Cronin 



up in our barrack-room for the information of those desiring to join the 
brigade. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Did you ever see Casement in your 
barrack-room after these were posted up? No, I saw him in the camp 
after they were posted up, but not in the barrack-room. 

Examination continued I saw them posted up after Casement had 
been in the camp. He came again to the camp after they were posted 
up. When I was at Limburg, 52 out of the 2400 prisoners joined the 
Irish Brigade. The first to join was Quinless, who was a corporal in the 
Royal Irish Regiment. Others who joined were Keogh, O'Toole, Bailey, 
O'Callaghan, and Cavanagh. 

Look at exhibit 5. Did you see that photograph, which is handed up, 
in The Gaelic American, the paper you have mentioned? Yes. I saw a 
copy of the paper in the camp in July, 1915. I recognise some of the 
men who appear in that photograph. 

[This photograph was on a leaflet and not in The Gaelic American 
itself, and Mr. Sullivan objected that the leaflet was not admissible; it 
was not shown to have anything to do with the prisoner, and not being 
admissible, a description of it could not be asked of the witness. The 
Court ruled that the question could be put, as the picture presented the game 
picture which the witness had described as being in The Gaelic American.] 

The man on the right I recognise as Quinless, of the llth Royal 
Irish Regiment; next to him, Cavanagh, of the South Irish Horse; 
next to him O'Callaghan, of the Munster Fusiliers; in the middle, Bailey, 
of the Royal Irish Rifles; the tall man next to him I do not 
know by name; then there is Keogh, of the Connaught Rangers. The 
little man on the left is a German in the Irish Brigade uniform. That 
uniform was silver grey. There were some that had a green shade. 
Quinless and Keogh had a different uniform to the remainder ; 
they had a brighter grey. They held the rank of feldwebel in the Irish 
Brigade that is the German for sergeant. There was a green shamrock 
on the cuff, and a green collar, and then on the cap there were a shamrock 
and a button. When we first went to Limburg we were fairly well treated 
as regards our food. After Casement had spoken to me at the camp 
I found a difference in my treatment. They reduced us from 750 grammes 
to 300 grammes of bread, and mangolds were substituted for potatoes. 
I do not know what happened to the men who joined the Irish Brigade. 

They were sent up to a camp near Berlin, and I had nothing to do with 
them. I was exchanged and sent back to this country from Limburg 
Camp on 2nd February, 1916. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN Where were you when war broke 
out? At home. 

Were you a reservist? Yes. 

You were in civil employment at the time? Yes. 

I suppose you had been living in Cork for some years? The latter part. 

Immediately before you rejoined the colours you had been there for 
some years? Six years and a half. 

You told us, I think, that you had once seen Sir Roger Casement 
before? Yes. 

That was in Cork? Yea. 
18 






Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Cronin 

In connection with the Irish Volunteer movement, was it not? Yes. 

That was a considerable time before the war, eight or nine months? 
Just about that time. 

Can you fix a date yourself? I could not fix the date. 

Can you fix even the period of the year at which you saw him there? 
I could not say. I know it was 1913. 

He was at that time organising the Irish Volunteers? Yes. 

In Ireland? I could not be sure whether it was him or not. There 
was a hostile demonstration there. 

You told us that you had seen, or that you thought you had seen, Sir 
Roger Casement before. Assuming you were right in your impression that 
it was Sir Roger Casement you had seen, was that nine months before the 
war? Something like that. 

It was in the year 1913? Yes. 

Assuming it was Sir Roger Casement, was he at the time engaged in 
recruiting for the Irish Volunteers? Addressing the meeting. 

Was he at a public meeting ? It was a public meeting ; it was in the 
City Hall. 

You went there yourself? I did. 

Being in the City Hall at the meeting you attended yourself, did you 
know that the meeting was summoned for the purpose of organising the 
Irish Volunteers? Yes. 

For the purpose of recruiting for them ? Yes. 

And to get money to supply them with arms? I could not tell you 
anything about that. 

Was there not a little jingle of money about the project? No. 

Was not that one of the objects of the meeting, to raise funds? I do 
not know. 

As well as raising recruits? I do not know what the object of the 
meeting was. 

You attended it yourself? Yes. 

And you tell me that at the City Hall, although you attended the 
meeting yourself, you are unable to say what was the object of the meeting 
at which you were present? The object of the meeting was about the 
Volunteers. 

You told me that they were appealing for recruits? That was their 
object, I suppo'se. 

I want to know in addition to that, were they appealing for the 
means of getting arms for their recruits? I could not tell you. 

This was in 1913. Had you been present at any other meeting? No. 

I think you said something about there being a hostile demonstration 
at this meeting? Yes. 

Was the hostile demonstration caused by some expression of approval 
with regard to the Ulster Volunteers? Yes. 

The meeting being hostile to the "Ulster Volunteers? I do not know- 
about that. It was broken up then as far as I know. 

You were present at the meeting that was broken up, and you told 
me the disturbance was caused by the fact that some person made some 
approving allusion to the Ulster Volunteers. Was it after that that the 
meeting was broken up? Yes. 

19 



Sir Roger Casement. 

John Cronin 

Was it in consequence of that, as far as you could see, that the meeting 
was broken up? I could not tell you. 

At all events, in the City of Cork there was a feeling of very strong 
hostility to the Ulster Volunteers. Is not that so? I do not know. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is quite possible, I suppose, it was 
broken up in consequence of that? I suppose so. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN You rejoined the colours and you went out to 
France? Yes. 

And we have you at Limburg. You recognise Sir Koger Casement 
as being the person who addressed you at Limburg? I partly knew him 
when I saw him. 

You partly knew him from this interesting episode in Cork? I would 
not be sure, but I thought I had seen him before. 

At this meeting in Cork ? I do not know properly where I had seen him. 

You do not like to commit yourself to that. What I want to get at is, 
have you a clear recollection of what he said to you when he saw you in 
Limburg ? Yes. 

I suppose you cannot recollect everything he said? I could not. I 
have not the brains of a. solicitor. 

Did he speak of raising the Irish Brigade in Limburg in connection 
with the Irish Volunteers in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say that they would fight in Ireland? Yes. 

That they were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

And for Ireland? Yes. 

And for nobody else? For nobody else, only for Ireland. 

Did he say they were to be landed in Ireland after the war was over ? 
No, in the event of Germany winning a sea battle. 

In the event of Germany winning a sea battle, they might be landed 
before the war was over? The war could not be over till the sea battle 
was won. 

That is a still more remote date than the one I suggested to you. I 
want to know, did not he speak of Germany having won the war before the 
brigade was to move to Ireland? No. 

He did not speak of Germany winning the war before the brigade was 
to move to Ireland? No. 

But the seas were to be clear before the brigade was to go to Ireland ? 
Yes. 

Did he state that the brigade was to be financed, the money provided 
for it, by Irishmen in Ireland and in America. Do you remember his 
saying that? No. 

But he told you that if Germany failed to win the war the members of 
the brigade would be sent to America? Yes. 

Instead of to Ireland? Yes. 

Were you in any way connected with any of the Volunteer movements 
in Ireland? No. 

Before you left Cork, in fact, was there a Volunteer force, an armed 
force, in the city? There was a Volunteer force, but they were not armed. 

Had they any arms? I never saw them going out. 

Was this a volunteer force organised in antagonism to the Ulster 
Volunteer force? I do not know. 
20 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Cronin 

You do not know? No. 

Did it, at all events, purport to be? Did the people connected with 
it purport to be in opposition to the Ulster Volunteer force? I was not 
interested in it. 

You did go to the meeting? Yes, for curiosity. 

At their meeting, at all events, was it not perfectly clear that the 
population were organising against the Ulster Volunteers? I did not hear 
it mentioned. 

Reference to the Ulster Volunteers created an uproar? It created an 
uproar when they said, " Three cheers for Sir Edward Carson." 

And then ? The meeting ended. 

There was an uproar? Yes. 

The meeting did not seem to be in favour of Sir Edward Carson? I 
do not think so. 

How long did you remain in Limburg Camp? From 23rd December, 
1914, till 2nd February, 1916. 

You were discharged from Limburg? Yes, on the 2nd February this 
year. 

You were there all the time. What was the latest date at which you 
saw Sir Roger Casement there? Can you fix the date? About the middle 
of February. 

Which year? 1915. 

The speech that he made to you, the speech that you listened to, must 
have been some time about the beginning of January, I gather? Yes. 

His visits to the camp were between the beginning of January and the 
middle of February? Yes. 

Can you say how often he was there, to the best of your recollection? 
I saw him on five or six occasions myself. 

Five or six occasions within that six weeks? Yes. 

When was the food ration reduced in Limburg ? The end of February, 
1915. 

Was there any change in the food ration later? Yes. 

When was the next alteration in food ration ? Somewhere about April. 

Was there any further alteration before you left? No, no more 
after that. 

The ration you gave in your direct examination, was that the last 
ration you were receiving, 300 grammes of bread and mangolds? Yes. 

That wa,s the last ration you were receiving? Yes. 

That represent the final amount to which you were reduced at the 
April reduction? Yes. 

Could you tell me what was the reduction at the end of February? It 
was reduced from 750 grammes to 300 grammes of bread at the end of 
February. 

Then what was the reduction of the ration that took place in April? 
The reduction of rations which took place in April was they gave me no 
potatoes, only mangolds. 

The potatoes were cut off in April? Yes. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you mean it was in April that you got 
the mangolds instead of potatoes? Yes. 

21 



Sir Roger Casement. 



John Cronin 



By Mr. SULLIVAN Was the reduction in rations universal through the 
whole camp? To the British prisoners' camp? 

Yes. Did the reduction of rations apply to every one who was left 
in the camp? Yes, to everybody who was left, of British prisoners, but 
there were Russians and French. 

There may be a difference; are you not an Irishman? There were 
Russians and French there as well. 

At all events, the rations were universal? To the British, but the 
French rations were not reduced. 

And the Russians ? I do not know Russian. I could not speak to them. 

You had refused to join this Irish Brigade? Certainly. 

At the outset, in January? Yes. 

There was no doubt or question about that? No, but I was marched 
up to the French lines every fortnight to know whether I would join. 

It was clear from the start that you were not going to join? Quite 
dear. 

By Mr. JUSTICE HOEBIDGE I understood you to say they kept on 
trying at you, and marched you up to the French lines every fortnight? 
Yes, till the day I left. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Up to the day you left, in February, 1916? Yes. 

Did the men who did join leave that camp and go away? They did, 
and they came back in uniform. 

And went away again, I suppose? They were there now and then in 
the camp. 

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY- GENERAL When you say you were 
marched to the French lines every fortnight to try to get you to join, 
who gave you the orders? The gentleman and interpreter in charge of 
the three companies. There were three companies, and we were marched 
up, thirty at a time, in charge of those who joined the Irish Brigade, 
and a German officer. 

When you were marched to the French lines, who asked you this 
question? Quinless and Keogh. 

And that, you say, lasted as long as you were there? Yes, till I came 
home. 

DAMBL O'BRIEN, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I was 
formerly a private in the Leinster regiment. I joined that regiment in 
1912, and about a month afterwards I was transferred to the 19th Hussars. 
I went with that regiment to France. I was wounded in the retreat from 
Mons, and I was taken prisoner while I was in hospital. I was first taken 
to a place called Doberitz, where there were about a couple of hundred 
prisoners from Irish regiments. From there I went to Limburg along 
with the other Irish prisoners that I have mentioned. We arrived at 
Limburg about 15th December, 1914. When we got there there were 
only about 50 other men in the camp, but afterwards there were about 
2500 Irish prisoners of war. 

Besides the prisoners of war, do you remember any one else coming 
there, anybody who made a speech? Yes. 

Who? Casement. I recognise the prisoner as Casement. He spoke 
to all the men. I heard him make a speech for the first time about 
22 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Daniel O'Brien 

19th February, 1915. I heard him say, " Now is the time for Irish- 
" men to fight against England; now is their opportunity for doing so; 
" join the Irish Brigade." He said he came to form an Irish Brigade, 
and he wanted all Irishmen to join the Irish Brigade and become guests 
of the German Army. He said that if they were successful in winning 
the war they would land the Irish Brigade along with the German Army 
in Ireland, and they would fight against England there. If Germany did 
not win the war, then they would be sent by the German Government to 
America with a guarantee of 5 and a situation. I do not remember 
anything else that he said. He said a lot I cannot remember all of it 
but what I have told is the substance of it. 

How did the men who were listening behave? They behaved all right 
till they began to find him out. They behaved all right for a quarter 
of an hour, and then they found out who he was, and they hissed him and 
booed him out of the camp. I saw one of the Munster Fusiliers actually 
push him. That Munster Fusilier got shifted out of the camp. 

Did you join the Irish Brigade? No; if I did I would not be here 
to-day. 

Did anything happen to the men who refused to join the Irish Brigade? 
Yes, we got punished; we got our rations cut down. I heard Sir Roger 
Casement speak only once, but I saw him in the camp several times. The 
time when he made the speech that I heard was the first time that I saw him. 
I saw him in the camp about twice after that. He was walking about on 
those occasions. I know about a dozen who joined the Irish Brigade; 
there were fifty-two all told who joined the Irish Brigade. The names of 
some who joined were Quinless, Royal Irish Regiment; Keogh, Royal Irish 
Regiment; O'Callaghan, Connaught Rangers; Bailey, Royal Irish Rifles; 
Cavanagh, Royal Irish Horse; O'Toole, Irish Guards. Shown exhibit 
No. 5 I recognise in that picture Quinless on the right ; then next to him 
Cavanagh; then a man whose name I do not know; then Bailey, O'Toole, 
and Keogh. I believe that the man at the end is an interpreter. I 
saw the men wearing the uniform in which they appear in the picture. 
The men who joined the Irish Brigade were sent away to Berlin. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That they were sent away is all that the 
witness can say. 

Examination continued When they came back in the uniform did they 
stay with you and the other prisoners? No; they were kept separate by 
themselves. Shown exhibit No. 4, address headed " Irishmen " I saw 
a document like that in the barrack-room while I was in camp at Lim- 
burg. I first noticed it after Casement came and visited us. I read it. 

Whereabout in the barrack-room was it? They were sent round to 
each barrack -room, brought round by a German soldier to each barrack- 
room. I left Limburg in February of this year ; I came over here as an 
exchanged prisoner of war. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN Can you tell me how long after 
you arrived in Limburg that the speech of Sir Roger Casement took place? 
About two months. 

Were you moving about the Irish camp? Yes. 

Did not you hear any other speech but one? That is all. 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Daniel O'Brien 



Did you see him speaking in the camp prior to that? Yes. 

How often? I saw him once speaking, but I saw him in the camp 
afterwards. 

Do I understand you to say that besides this speech you have reported 
to us you saw him delivering another speech? No, I saw him in the 
camp. I did not pay any attention to him. 

You yourself never saw him delivering any speech except the one 
you listened to? That is all I saw. 

I suppose you cannot recollect everything he said? No. 

Did he first of all speak about the Irish Volunteer movement? No; 
he spoke about the Irish Brigade. 

Did not he mention the Irish Volunteers? He might have done. I 
did not hear him. I was not there at the beginning of it. 

Did you only listen to a small part of his speech? That is all, and 
went away. 

You only heard a small part of his speech? Yes. 

But in what you did hear did he speak of the Irish Brigade fighting 
in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say the Irish Brigade would be used in Ireland only? In 
Ireland. 

Did he say they were to be transferred to Ireland when Germany 
had won the war? Yes. 

And if Germany failed to win the war they should go to America? To 
America, yes. 

Arrangements would be made to have them go to America. Did you 
speak to Sir Roger Casement at all yourself? No. 

You did not say anything to him? No. 

You simply remained in the camp, I gather, and said nothing and 
did nothing? No, because I could not do. 

When were your rations reduced? Just after Casement went away. 

Was that the end of February? About a week afterwards. 

Was it about the end of February? It was getting on close to the 
end of February. 

Have you not been speaking about the 19th February? Yes, the 
19th February. 

How do you fix the date of the 19th February? Because I have good 
reason to. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You are asked how you fix it? Because 
my rations were cut down about a week afterwards. I shall never forget it. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Your rations were cut down at the end of 
February? Yes, about the end of February. 

And you fix the 19th by reference to the date of the cutting down 
of your rations, which was at the end of February? Yes. 

That is why you say it was the 19th when you heard the speech. 
Were the rations cut down for every man in the camp? Every man. 

And was recruiting going on after Sir Roger Casement left? Yes. 

The recruiting for the Irish Brigade went on as usual? Yes. 

Although the rations had been cut down? Yes. 

For everybody? For everybody. 
24 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Daniel O'Brien 

In April was there a fresh cutting down of rations? Were the rations 
out down further in April? Yes. 

What reduction of rations was made at the end of February? I could 
not exactly tell you, but it was very small. 

By Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE What was it you say was very small? 
The amount of bread. That is what we were living on, a piece of bread, 
and what we were getting. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN And in April was your ration further reduced by sub- 
stituting mangolds for potatoes? Yes 1 . 

Was that universal in the camp? Yes. 

Did recruiting for the Irish Brigade still go on? Yes. 

I think you mentioned in your evidence about 52 men? About 52 
men joined the Irish Brigade. 

Is that in the whole period of recruiting? Yes. 

Up to the time you left Limburg Camp ? Yes. 

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL To take you back for a 
moment to the speech you heard Sir Roger Casement make, he said the 
Irish Brigade were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say who were to take them to Ireland to fight? The German 
Army. 

Did he say against whom they were to fight? To fight against 
England. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is one question I want to put. 
You told us there were some 2500 altogether in the Limburg Camp? Yes, 
my lord. 

Were any steps taken to find out whether the 2500 were Irish? They 
were supposed to be Irish. 

Why? It was supposed to be an Irish camp. They all came as 
Irishmen to this camp. 

Before they were removed to the camp was there anything done to 
find out whether they were Irish? Yes. 

What? You had to put your name down, and where you were born, 
and your religion. 

Were there any but Irish regiments there? Yes, mixed English, 
Scotch, and Irish. 

At Limburg? Oh, no, at the various camps before we went to Limburg. 

There were English, Scotch, and Irish at the various camps. When 
you went to Limburg what regiments were there? They were all mixed 
English, Irish, and Scotch but they were all supposed to be Irish. 

They were mixed regiments, not only Irish regiments? All regiments. 

You say they were all supposed to be Irish. What do you mean by 
that? It was supposed to be Irishmen who went to Limburg Camp. It 
was supposed to be a special camp just for Irishmen alone. 

JOHN ROBINSON, examined by Mr. BRANSON I live at 45 Ross Street, 
Bristol. I was a corporal in the Royal Army Medical Corps. I joined 
the Army in June, 1906. At the outbreak of war I was stationed at 
Dublin. I went to France on 19th August, 1914, attached to the 13th 
Field Ambulance, and on 24th August, 1914, I was taken prisoner at 
Thulin. I was wounded in the head, and also in the knee and in the shoulder. 

25 



Sir Roger Casement. 

John Robinson 

I was taken to hospital at Recklinghausen, in Germany, and from there 
I went to the prisoner-of-war camp at Sennelager. There were other 
Irish prisoners there. No difference was made at the start between the 
British prisoners who were Irishmen and the British prisoners who were 
not, but a difference was made about three months afterwards, when the 
Irish Brigade was formed. The Irish prisoners were all taken away and 
put in a hut by themselves. We Irish prisoners only had camp work to 
do, while the rest had to work and carry and saw wood. I left Sennelager 
Camp with the rest of the Irish prisoners some 200 or 300 on 23rd 
December, and went to Limburg. The prisoners at Limburg were all 
supposed to be Irish prisoners. I remember Sir Roger Casement coming 
there after I had been there a little while. I recognise him as the 
prisoner. I saw him in the camp. 

What was he doing there? He was speaking with the Irish Brigade. 

Speaking about ? The Irish Brigade. I did not catch all he 

said, but I remember him saying, " Now is your chance to fight for Ireland 
" and free it. I am very glad to see you here. This is the only chance 
"you will have to fight for Ireland. Why do you not join the Irish 
" Brigade? " Then he spoke about the treatment of Ireland in England. 
That is all I remember. 

What was the Irish Brigade to do? They were supposed to land in 
Ireland and free Ireland. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Tell us what you heard him say not 
what they were supposed to do? That is about all I can remember at the 
present time. He said he was very glad to see so many Irishmen here, 
that now was our time to fight for Ireland and strike a blow, and he hoped 
we would all join the Irish Brigade. 

Examination continued Did he say with whom the Irish Brigade were 
going to fight? Fight against England. He said that if Germany had a 
victory on the sea they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland, but if 
Germany did not win at sea then we were all to go to America. At the 
start there was no money mentioned, but at the end of the speech he said 
that we would all get 10 in money and be sent off to America. He did 
not say who was to give us the 10. 

How many people were listening to this? There were generally about 
forty or fifty, sometimes thirty. I heard him make speeches on four 
different occasions. About a week or so would elapse between the different 
occasions. 

What sort of reception did he get from those who were listening? 
Very poor ; he did not get a good reception. On one occasion he was 
struck, and on another occasion I eaw him get pushed. When he was 
struck he swung his umbrella round to keep the prisoners off him, and 
when he was pushed he walked out of the camp. There was no one with 
him at that time. A couple of German sentries came on the scene the 
second time I saw Casement there, and he went out of the camp with them. 
On that occasion the crowd that was round was getting a bit excited, and 
they did not want to listen to him. Shown exhibit No. 4, address headed 
" Irishmen " I saw that in the Limburg Camp. It was a form very 
much like this ; the same size, only what I saw was typewritten. It was 
in the centre of the camp when I saw it. A fellow had it in his hand, 
26 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Robinson 

and there was a crowd round reading it. There was a kind of buff form 
handed round with questions on. 

Who gave you these forms? The Germans. I got one, and I filled up 
the answers to the questions. Every man had to fill up the document 
and hand it back to the Germans. I handed my document back, and 
I have not seen it since. I stayed at Limburg for five months, and I was 
shifted from there to Giessen. I did not join the Irish Brigade. There 
were about 150 other prisoners taken to Giessen. None of them had 
agreed to join the Irish Brigade. As far as I can remember, between 
fifty and sixty at Limburg joined the Irish Brigade. I did not see any 
of those persons at Giessen. I remember the names of one or two of the 
prisoners who joined the Irish Brigade Bailey, Keogh, Quinless, and 
O'Toole. I saw some of the persons who joined the Irish Brigade in 
uniform a green uniform with a little harp on the collar and a harp on 
the cap. I had never seen the uniform before. On 8th October I was 
exchanged and came back to this country. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN How long was Sir Roger Casement 
speaking on the occasions that you have detailed to us, the first time you 
heard him speak, for instance? About a quarter of an hour to twenty 
minutes. 

Can you remember all he said? No. 

Or do you only remember bits? A few words or so. 

He wanted you to join an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

Did he say that, the Irish Brigade was to fight for Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say it was to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

And did he address you ? Did he say it was to go to Ireland when the 
Germans had won the war? No, he said if Germany had a victory on sea. 

Did he speak about Germany winning the war? Yes. 

What did he say about Germany winning the war? He always said 
that Germany would win, but we contradicted him, and said they would not. 

You have done your best to stop it, anyhow? I have done a little bit. 

I suggest to you that he represented when Germany had won the war 
that the Irish Brigade was to go to Ireland unless there was a victory 
at sea meantime. Was that what he said? I cannot remember that. I 
remember him saying if Germany had a victory on sea he would land us in 
Ireland. 

But there is no doubt it was in Ireland you were to serve? Oh, yes, 
at that time. 

Did he speak of the sources of payment? Yes, there was 10 men- 
tioned. 

Was the 10 mentioned owing to somebody asking what was to happen 
if Germany never won the war? Of course, I could not say that. I was 
not there always. 

What had happened immediately before the 10 was mentioned? 
He was just speaking about the Irish Brigade, and somebody asked him 
about money, and he said we would get 10. 

Were they to get 10 in any event, or were they to get 10 to go to 
America with if Germany failed to win? 10 if they joined the Irish 
Brigade. 

In any event? Yes. 

27 



Sir Roger Casement. 



John Robinson 



Are you sure of that? Yes. 

Is it true that he always spoke on the assumption that Germany was 
going to win the war? Yes. 

And his idea was, in that event he wanted to free Ireland. Did he 
say that 1 Yes. 

Did one or two men ask him what would happen supposing Germany 
did not win the war? Yes. 

Was it then that the statement was made about the 10? In or 
about that time. 

And about sending them to America? Yes. The 10 was to join 
the brigade. 

Was not the date of this speech about a fortnight after you got there? 
Yes, about a fortnight. 

Did not you get there about the 23rd December? Yes. 

A number of Irishmen reached the place at the same time, about the 
23rd December? Yes. 

In the commencement of his speech did he say there was no money 
in it? Yes, at the start. 

At the start he said there was no money in it, and you tell me that 
although he told you there was no money in it he also told you in the 
same speech you would get 10 merely for joining? Yes. That was the 
second time I heard him speaking. 

Was it the second time that the 10 came in? Yes. 

Are you sure of that? Yes. 

Was not the 10 to take you to America? I never heard about that. 

You are a native of Belfast, I think? Yes. 

How long have you been with the colours? About ten years. 

I suppose from time to time you have been back in Belfast? Yes. 

Have you spent any time in Belfast during the last five years? Yes. 

Any long period of time? Have you been there for any considerable 
time? Yes. 

During the last five years? Yes. 

You have spent long periods of time there. Did you hear Sir Roger 
Casement in his speech refer to the formation of the Irish Volunteers in 
Ireland? I never heard him speak about it. 

At any time? I never heard him speak about it. 

You never heard him at any time describe himself as the organiser of 
the Irish Volunteers in Ireland ? No, I do not think I ever heard that. 

Are you sure about that, or is it that your memory fails you? No, 
I never heard him speaking about that. 

During the time you were in Belfast during the last five years had 
you seen bodies of armed Volunteers going about Belfast? Yes. 

Nobody interfering with them? No. 

When first did you notice these armed Volunteers in Belfast? Do you 
mean the National Volunteers or the Ulster Volunteers ? 

Were not there both sets? Yes. 

The Ulster Volunteers were formed first, were they not? Yes. 

And the National Volunteers were formed later? Yes. 

To resist, the Ulster Volunteers ? Yes. 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Robinson 

Did you attend any of the meetings that were held in Belfast in 
connection with the armed Volunteer movement on either side? No. 

Was there great excitement in Belfast about the meetings that were 
held? Not very often. 

Did you read any of the reports that were circulated about the forma- 
tion of those bodies? No. 

You read none ? No. 

When did you leave Belfast prior to the war? The 5th August, 1914. 

You practically joined from Belfast? Yes. 

Had you been in civil employment? Yes. 

I did not appreciate that, I beg your pardon. Up to the moment 
you left Belfast were there bodies openly parading Belfast without objec- 
tion from anybody? I could not tell; I do not know much about the 
Volunteers. 

You could see armed men marching about, not soldiers or policemen? 
I have seen armed men. 

Marching about? Yes. 

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR- GENERAL You told the jury that you 
heard Sir Roger Casement say that if Germany won a victory at sea the 
Irish Brigade would be landed in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say who would send the Irish Brigade to Ireland? Germany 
would send us to Ireland. 

Did he say what they were to do when they got there? Free Ireland. 

Did he say whether they would have any fighting to do? He did not 
go into that; he isaid it was to free Ireland when they got there. 

Did he say from whom they were to free Ireland? From England. 

By the LORD CHEEP JUSTICE Have you got exhibit No. 4 before you? 
Yes. 

Can you tell us did you ever see that document in the camp when Sir 
Roger Casement was there? Yes. 

Was he actually in the camp? Yes. 

Do you remember when that was? In or about May. 

What was being done with it? There were about a dozen copies of it 
issued round to the men ; there were two or three posted on the doors of 
the barrack-room. 

When you say twelve were issued to the men can you tell us were 
the men reading them? Yes. 

Several of them ? Yes ; it was issued round to groups ; several would 
get in groups, and one man would read it. 

You said in answer to the Solicitor-General Germany would send the 
Irish Brigade to free Ireland from England when they got there? Yes. 

Who do you mean by " they," when " they " got there? The Irish 
Brigade. 

WILLIAM EGAN, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I live at 14= 
Barrett Street, Dublin. I was born in Kingstown, and I went to school in 
Dublin. I joined the Royal Irish Rifles in September, 1904. There was 
a man named Bailey in the same regiment whom I knew ; I had gone to 
school with him. When the war broke out I went with my regiment to 
France in August, 1914. I was wounded at Neuve Chapelle in October, 

29 



Sir Roger Casement. 

William Egan 

1914, and I was taken prisoner by the Germans. I was taken to Cologne, 
where I was put into the hospital, Lazaretto, No. 6. I remained in 
Cologne close on three months, and then I was sent to Limburg. I got 
there about 3rd February, 1915. I saw Bailey there. 

Did you recognise him at once and speak to him? Yes, he spoke to 
me. On 19th February I was passing the camp at the time I was in a 
delicate state of health and I saw a man speaking to three prisoners. He 
was a tall man, dressed in dark clothing, with a long coat, a soft hat, and 
he carried an umbrella on the left arm. I passed on and did not take any 
further notice. I am doubtful whether I should know the man again. 
After that I had two pamphlets given to me. One of them was given 
me by a German officer. I think it was called " How to Free Ireland/' 
but I am not sure. I also received a book along with the pamphlet. It 
was given to us by a German sergeant. I only read a small part of the 
book; it was concerning '98. The title was "Crimes Against Ireland 
" and How to Free It," and it was edited by Sir Roger Casement. I did 
not bring it away with me from the camp as I was forbidden. Shown 
exhibit No. 4 that is what I have called the pamphlet. It was given 
to me by a German officer; I tore it up. Besides that document I was 
given another form by a German sergeant. I left it on the table. There 
were many of them in the room at the time, but I was not allowed to 
bring one away. 

What were you to do with that form? We were to answer the questions 
that were on it. I filled in the answers and gave the form back to the 
sergeant. While I was there a number of the prisoners joined the Irish 
Brigade, among them being Bailey, Scanlan, and Greer, all from my regi- 
ment, the Royal Irish Rifles. Being shown the photograph, exhibit 5 I 
recognise five out of the six men in that photograph. The first man on 
the right is Quinless, the third man is O'Callaghan, the centre man is 
Bailey, the sixth man is Keogh, and the seventh man is a German interpreter 
of the name of Metz. I saw some of the men who joined the brigade after 
they joined it. Their uniform appeared to me to be of a silver-grey with 
green facings, and there was, I am not sure, whether it was a harp or a 
shamrock on the collar, but a crown without the harp in the cap. I had 
not seen this uniform before till I saw it on the Irish Brigade. I only 
saw two men wearing a belt Bailey and Quinless. I saw them coming 
from the town of Limburg ; they passed me on the road ; they both had 
belts and side-arms of a German pattern on. I did not join the Irish 
Brigade. About fifty-two men joined the brigade. After this we seemed 
to get treated worse because we would not join the brigade. The food was 
cut; they made our allowance in the food less than it really was. I 
arrived in England on 7th February this year ; I was exchanged. When I 
left Germany Bailey was at Zossen. He used to come to Limburg for 
recruiting purposes. I did not speak to Bailey after he joined the 
brigade. I saw him at the Castle at Dublin on 6th May, 1916. I recog- 
nised him there, and he seemed to know me. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN You lived in Dublin when the war 
broke out? Yes. 

Were you in civil employment? I was. 

Living there in Dublin? Yes. 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

William Egan 

Where were you engaged ; what business were you in ? I was a porter 
in the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. 

Were you in Dublin on the Sunday before the war broke out? I was. 

Could you remember where you were on that Sunday? I was at 
Kingstown. 

Were you in the city at all during the afternoon? Not to my know- 
ledge. 

You were out at Kingstown? Yes. 

The Sunday I am referring to is the Sunday of the Hogue affair ; do 
you remember the Sunday that the goods were landed at Hogue? I do 
not remember. 

Were you not in the city that day? No. 

The war broke out a few days afterwards? Yes. 

Even prior to that incident, did you see Volunteers armed and drilling 
in Dublin? No. 

Did you see them drilling? No. 

You never saw the Volunteers drilling in Dublin? No. 

Or marching through the city? No. 

Did you ever see them at all until you left Dublin? I was not 
interested in them. 

Without being interested in them, if a body of armed men, who were 
neither policemen nor soldiers, passed you in the street would you notice 
them? I would. 

Did such bodies pass you in the streets in Dublin ? No. 

Are you sure of that? Yes. 

You never saw them? No. 

With regard to the recruiting that you say was going on in Limburg, 
when were your rations reduced? They were reduced in February. 

At the end of February ? About the middle of February. 

Some time in February at all events? Yes. 

What rations were reduced? The bread rations. 

Was it reduced for every one in the camp? It was. 

Was there a further reduction of rations in April ? Yes. 

For every one in the camp? Yes. 

There was no more reduction of rations after April? No, not that 
I know of. 

Was not recruiting going on for the Irish Brigade after that? It was 
going on all through my time there. 

So that it was not only the men who did not join, but every one in 
the camp had their rations reduced, had not they? The men who joined 
the brigade, their rations were not reduced. 

Were not they removed from the camp ? They were, to the top of the 
camp. 

They were removed to a camp of their own? Yes. 

Was it within the same lines ? Yes. 

But they were removed to the top of the camp? Yes. 

They had privileges that no one else had, you say? Yee. 

Better food? Yes 

And given new uniforms, apparently? Yes. 

31 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Michael O'Connor 



MICHAEL O'CONNOR, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am a corporal in the 
Royal Irish Regiment. My home is in Wexford. I went with the British 
Expeditionary Force in August, 1914, and I was wounded and taken 
prisoner by the Germans on 20th October. After a little while I was 
taken to Darmstadt, and then about the middle of December I went to 
Limburg. When I first got to Limburg there were about 300 Irish 
prisoners of war there. Shortly after they were joined by other 1600, who 
came from Hamlin, Sennelager, and Munster, so that there would be about 
2000 British prisoners who were Irishmen. I remember seeing Sir Roger 
Casement at Limburg about the end of December, 1914. I heard him 
addressing some men. He said, " Now is the time for to fight or strike 
"a, blow for Ireland," and that England was nearly beaten. I should 
think there were about seventy men listening to him. I was on the 
outskirts of the crowd. I have told all that I heard him say. I saw him 
on that later occasion, but I did not hear what he said. The people were 
hissing and booing him down the lines 1 that day. He said that those who 
hissed him were followers of Johnnie Redmond, the recruiting sergeant of 
the British Army. A sergeant-major of the 4th Dragoon Guards called 
Casement a traitor. That sergeant-major was sent to Giessen or some 
other camp for punishment along with Corporal Robinson. These are the 
only occasions on which I saw Sir Roger Casement at the camp. I left the 
camp in the next autumn, in October. I saw two books at the camp. 
One was entitled " Crimes Against Ireland," by Sir Roger Casement, and 
the other was entitled " The King, the Kaiser f and Ireland." I could not 
see any author's name to that last production. Shown exhibit No. 4, 
address headed " Irishmen " I saw that in printed form in the camp. It 
was not in typewritten form. I could not tell how it came to be amongst 
the men in the camp, but I know the books 1 and the papers, The Con- 
tinental Times and The Gaelic American, were distributed. I saw the 
document which is similar to exhibit No. 4 shortly after getting to the 
camp. I could not tell the exact date, but it was long after Sir Roger 
Casement addressed the first meeting. I could not say whether it was 
before or after he addressed the second meeting. I left Limburg in 
October, 1915, and I came home as an exchanged prisoner of war. I saw 
Bailey in Limburg Camp on a couple of occasions, and I also saw him in 
Dublin when I got back. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN You fixed the date of the first time 
you heard Sir Roger speak at the end of December? Yes. 

The next time about the 3rd of January? Yes, the next time about 
the 3rd of January. 

Have you a pretty clear recollection of how the dates stand? Yes, in 
January. 

January was the second occasion? Yes. 

The other may have been earlier? It was close at the end of 
December, about the 22nd. 

What was the last time you saw him in camp ? The 3rd of January. 

You never saw Sir Roger Casement in the camp afterwards? No, 
but I heard he was there on the 19th. 

Do you remember ever hearing of his being there afterwards? No. 

The 19th of February was the last day upon which you ever heard he 
was there, but you did not see him on that occasion ? No, I did not. 
32 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Michael O'Connor 

In that first speech how much did you hear, two or three minutes, or 
ten minutes? I was just on the outskirts of the crowd; I heard them 
passing remarks. 

Did you remain on the outskirts of the crowd only a few minutes? Yes. 

You stayed there as long as there was anything going on, I suppose ? 
No. 

Did you go away after a few minutes? Yes. 

You heard him say that England was nearly beaten ; did you hear him 
suggest the war was nearly over then ? No, I did not. 

England was 1 nearly beaten? He could have said it, but I did not know. 

If England was nearly beaten, was not it in the context that the war 
was nearly over? It might have been. 

Then whatever he was talking about, he spoke of it in the context that 
the war, at all events, was nearly over? Yes. 

Do you assent to that? I assent to that. 

The war being nearly over, he was recruiting an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

MICHAEL MOORE, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am No. 3457, Royal 
Army Medical Corps, serving on H. M.S. " Cambria " at Dover. My home 
is in Kilkenny. On 9th August, 1904, I joined the South Lancashire 
Regiment, and then I was transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps. I 
went with that arm to France in August, 1914. There I was taken 
prisoner, and sent to Sennelager Camp. I stayed at Sennelager from 1st 
September till 22nd December, when I went to Limburg Cainp. There 
were others with me, all Irishmen, and they came from different regiments. 
They numbered about 2000, and they came from Sennelager. At Limburg, 
when I got there, I found other regiments there from other camps. I remem- 
ber Sir Roger Ca sement coming to Limburg Camp. I had been there for about 
a week before I first saw him. I saw him passing through the lines, and 
at the end of the lines I saw him speaking to some men. I could hear what 
he said. The first occasion on which I heard him address any men was on 
or about 3rd or 4th January, 1915. He told them he came there for the 
purpose of forming an Irish Brigade, and wanted the men to join it. That 
is all I heard him say on that occasion. About the end of February, 
very nearly two months later, I heard him again address other men in the 
Russian Camp at Limburg. When any Irishmen joined the Irish Brigade 
they were sent up to the Russian Camp. I saw, roughly, about fifty there ; 
they were dressed in khaki, except one or two who were in Irish Brigade 
uniform. I know the names of those one or two. Keogh was one, and 
Dowling was another. Quinless was also there. Keogh and Dowling were 
the only two in that new uniform. The others who had joined the camp 
were in khaki, and some in civilians' clothes. Those who had joined the 
Irish Brigade stayed in the Russian Camp ; the Russian lines are in the 
same camp. The other Irish prisoners who were in the Russian part of 
the camp had been marched up under an escort. That was only on one 
occasion; I was only taken up on one occasion. On that occasion I was 
marched up by a German escort. We were marched up a section each 
time; that would be about forty-five or fifty men. When I got there on 
the occasion on which I was one of the section I saw Keogh and Dowling 
there and Sir Roger Casement. Sir Roger Casement asked those men to 
join the Irish Brigade, I being among the men, and he said any man that 
D 33 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Michael Moore 



would join the Irish. Brigade he would give him uniform, better food, and 
better housing. He also said in case of the Germans losing the war he 
would send those men to America, give them a free passage, and 1 or 20 
pocket money, and guarantee employment in America. The Irish Brigade 
was to be sent from Limburg to a camp outside Berlin ; he said they were 
to be the guests of the German Government. He also said the first German 
victory on the water he would land the brigade in Ireland. 

Did he say what kind of victory ? Naval victory. The Irish Brigade 
were to be landed in Ireland. I expect they were to be landed in Ireland 
from German vessels. I did not hear him say how the Irish Brigade were 
going to get to Ireland, but he said he would land them in Ireland. There 
is nothing more I can tell that I heard Sir Roger Casement say that day. 
I came back to the camp. I never heard him on any other occasion only 
on two occasions. As to how what he was saying on this day that I 
listened to him was received by the men, some hissed and booed him. 
Nobody agreed to join on that occasion. After that we were marched back 
down to our own camp. Our rations were cut down about February or 
shortly after February, about a week or fourteen days after this speech I 
heard. I saw a book entitled " Crimesi Against Ireland" in the camp. 
That book was printed in English. There were three or four copies between 
every room. They were distributed by the Germans. (Shown exhibit 
No. 4.) I have seen a paper similar to that in camp. I have seen more than 
one. They were distributed to the men by the Germans. They were 
distributed amongst the men some time about the month of February. I 
could not exactly say whether it was before or after this speech, of Sir Roger 
Casement which I have been telling about, but it was about that time. 
Papers were also distributed, The Continental Times and The Gaelic 
American. I left Limburg in October of last year as an exchanged 
prisoner. After a little while I rejoined the Royal Army Medical Corps at 
Aldershot. The uniform in which those two men were was a light green 
uniform with dark green facings; it was a German pattern tunic. They 
wore German side-arms, a brown belt, and a German bayonet. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN Apparently Sir Roger Casement 
discussed what was to happen to the Irish Brigade if Germany lost the 
war, did not he? Yes. 

In that event the Irish Brigade would go to America? Yes. 

If Germany lost the war. I suggest to you that he said that he 
would land them in Ireland if Germany won the war? If there was a sea 
battle, and if Germany came out victorious in the first sea battle, he 
would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland. 

Did he speak of the Irish Volunteer movement? Not to my know- 
ledge. 

Or did he speak of the Home Rule movement in Ireland or getting 
Home Rule for Ireland? I have never heard him. 

Was there no reference to Home Rule in the event of Germany winning 
the war? Was there no reference to Home Rule? There was one, that 
Germany would give Ireland Home Rule. 

If she won the war? If she won the war. 

But do you tell me that there was no reference to Home Rule to be 
won by the Irish Brigade? No. 

Are you sure of that? I have never heard him say it. 
34 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Neill 

JOHN NEILL, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I live at Borris, 
Balnagree, County Carlow. I am No. 4231, 2nd Battalion, 18th Royal 
Irish. I was wounded and taken prisoner at La Bassee. I was taken to 
Hanover, where there were other Irish prisoners. 

What happened just before you left Hanover? There was a German 
general came there and he inquired for all Irishmen 

Mr. SULLIVAN This is something which took place at Hanover with 
which the prisoner is in no way connected. 

The WITNESS He inquired for all Irishmen. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Wait a moment; it is not necessary to have 
that. 

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL The charge is that the prisoner aided and 
supported the German Government. Helped them in what? In seducing 
British soldiers to join the German Army or fight for the Germans. That 
means they were all engaged in one common object for one common 
purpose. I submit we have a right to prove what the Germans were 
trying to do when we are proving that the prisoner helped to do it. May 
I read one passage from Archbold, where the cases are summed up at 
page 400 : "In cases of conspiracy, and of high treason encompassing 
" the King's death, &c., or in which the case for the Crown is that the 
1 ' crime was the result of a conspiracy, anything said or written by one of 
" the accomplices, not as a confession simply, but for the purpose of 
" furthering the common design, is admissible evidence against the 
" others "; and there are other passages of the same kind. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I will call attention to the fact that there is no charge 
of conspiracy here at all. I quite agree that in a case like Mulcahy 
you may possibly have charges against a man of being engaged in con- 
spiracy by way of treason with a number of individuals. Having charged 
that, you may first prove the conspiracy and then prove any acts of 
Mulcahy where the act of each conspirator is held to be the act of 
every member of the body, but where it starts with no conspiracy, to 
assume that a conspiracy has been not only charged, but proved, is the 
first step in what is now sought to be done, namely, the admission of 
this evidence. But there is no charge against Sir Roger Casement of 
conspiring with any person or persons in Germany. There is no allegation 
that he confederated with any member of the German Army in doing 
this; the charge before you, my lord, is a charge simply of doing an 
act which is the personal act of the man himself, and in the absence 
of some connection, even in that case, the acts of his agents for the 
furtherance of his purposes, if you prove them to be his agents, are 
to be admissible, but the statements! and acts of persons whom, as far 
as the evidence goes, he has never seen in his life cannot be introduced, 
I submit. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE' May it not be a step in proving he was 
adhering to the King's enemies in Germany? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit not. What is proposed to be put in evidence, 
as I understand from the notice furnished, is, first of all, a speech, or 
observations, made by a German general at a place where Sir Roger 
Casement is never alleged to have been; it is in some strange camp. 
Assume the charge is that he adhered to the King's enemies, the statement 

35 



Sir Roger Casement. 



John Neill 



of one of the King's enemies is not the evidence of that charge, I most 
respectfully submit. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Not the mere proof of the statement made 
by one of the King's enemies, but I understand the way it is put by the 
(Sown is that he was working in assisting the King's enemies, and in 
that sense was adhering to them by a number of acts which are then 
given as the overt acts. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is the charge. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This evidence is said to be given as a step 
in proving he adhered to the King's enemies, the fact that the man went 
from Hanover to Limburg, of course, is clearly admissible; that you 
would not object to. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Your lordship will take my submission. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The only other point is whether the general's 
observations are admissible. 

[Their lordships conferred.] 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I understand you to press the point. You 
want us to rule upon it, Mr. Solicitor -General 1 We shall have no hesita- 
tion in ruling if you desire it; the only question is whether you think 
it is sufficiently important. 

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL I strongly submit I am entitled to put it, 
but I do not press it strongly at all, that I should ask what was said. I did 
want to ask whether a speech was made; I do not care very much 
whether he tells the jury or not what was said. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is the only point upon which there 
can be any discussion. I do not think there is any doubt what the 
ruling should be, but what is the value of it if you get it? I suggest it is 
hardly worth pressing if you get the fact of the speech. 

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL Then I will not press it. I recognise the 
objection, but not any argument in favour of it. 

Examination continued About three days before I left Hanover a 
German general came there and he called all the Irishmen together. 
Then he made a very small speech to us. He told us how the English 
behaved very badly. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We must not have that. 

Examination continued After that small speech he never called us 
together any more. Nothing else happened before I left Hanover. When 
I left Hanover I went to Limburg. A draft of 150 Irishmen came with 
me from Hanover to Limburg. There were quite a few soldiers with me 
who were not Irishmen. When we got to Limburg some of those who 
were not Irishmen were found out and sent away to some other place; 
where we never knew. When I got to Limburg I saw Sir Roger Case- 
ment there. I saw him on the evening when we got to Limburg. That 
evening he said how all the Irishmen looked very smart and very soldier- 
like men, and that after a short time at Limburg he would bring all the 
Irishmen back again and make them as smart as ever. Casement did not 
say that to me ; he said it out to the crowd. When we got to Limburg 
we were all together, the whole draft of 150 who had come from Hanover. 
Casement made a speech to all of us. On that evening he never men- 
36 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Neill 

tioned anything about the Irish Brigade, but he told us in his speech that 
on the following Sunday we were all to go to church service. He said that 
all the Irishmen there at present should have clothes, and footwear 
given to them; we were to get wooden shoes on the following morning, 
and were to be well fed, and well looked after by the Germans. That 
is what he said to us on the evening we got there. Personally I did 
not know who he was : he never told us his name on that evening not 
for a couple of evenings afterwards. That is nearly all he said that 
evening as well as I can remember. Next morning we got the wooden 
clogs, and Sir Roger was in the camp on the following morning again. 
He did not say anything to us then about joining the Irish Brigade : he 
never mentioned anything about the Irish Brigade at that time. He 
came into all the barrack-rooms. He never told us who he was. As 
near as I can remember that was on a Friday, and it was on Thursday 
we arrived. On the Friday he came again to the camp, and then some- 
thing happened on the following Sunday. 

On the Sunday we went down to church service, and we went into 
a barrack-room where church service was supposed to be going on. When 
the crowd of us went into the barrack-room we saw Sir Roger on a table; 
he was getting ready to give a speech in the barrack-room. He had an 
Irish Brigade book in his hand. He said he was going away for the space 
of a fortnight, and when he came back he wanted to see fifty names in 
this book, and with the fifty names which were to be in this book for men 
to join the Irish Brigade he was going to form an Irish Brigade. He 
also said the German Government would equip the brigade with arms and 
ammunition and uniforms. He also mentioned something about pay; 
that the Irish Brigade would get something about from 10 to 20. He 
did not say where they would get that from. He also told the Irishmen 
on that Sunday that they wer all to join this brigade, and that if Germany 
ever gained a naval victory they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland, 
and to strike a blow for old Ireland once again and to gain Home Rule. He 
also said how the Germans were very much like the Irish and the Irish very 
much like the Germans. Personally I did not believe that. He also said 
that Ireland had the strongest power now in the world at her back. That 
is all I remember. He also said he would leave the Irish Brigade book with 
some sergeant over some section, and whoever wanted to join this brigade 
was to sign his name to this book, and when they joined the Brigade they 
were free men, and they would be sent to Berlin and well looked after. He 
also wanted to know if all the men there at the meeting were all true-bred 
Irishmen. No one signed the book on that day. The book was left with 
some sergeant I forget the name of the sergeant whom it was left with. 
Casement then went away. I think he came back on the following day. 
He did not do anything on that day so far as I recollect. He gave no 
sipeech or anything like that, but he visited both barrack- rooms again. 
Then he left us, and it was a fortnight before he came back again. I did 
not see anything of the book after he left or before he came back again 
I never saw anything of the book. He said he was going to Berlin for that. 
As to the date -when he came back, to the best of my memory it was either 
at the latter end of December or early in January. 

When he came back on that occasion he said something to the men. 

37 



Sir Roger Casement. 



John Neill 



He told the Irishmen then, when he came back, that he was very dis- 
appointed to see that there were no names entered in his book for this Irish 
Brigade, and he also wanted to know what were the Irishmen thinking of 
if they said they would not go and fight for their country now at this time, 
and that England was completely beat, and that there was no danger of 
their not being landed in Ireland, and that he was the head man over the 
Irish Volunteers in Ireland, and that he was very proud to see how smart- 
looking they looked, and he also hoped to- see the Irish Brigade would soon 
be formed, and to go and fight for Ireland. No one signed the book that 
day. I never saw any one sign the book at all. When Casement went 
away I cannot say whether anybody went with him. When he came 
back the second time a corporal of the name of Corporal Quinless joined the 
Irish Brigade. That was on his second visit to Limburg the one I have 
been speaking of at the end of December or early in January. On that 
occasion Corporal Quinless joined. Corporal Keogh also joined. After 
they had joined they left the camp. I saw them afterwards, and when 
I saw them again they were dressed in a uniform. It was a greenish- 
coloured uniform, something like the German uniform, and there was a 
harp and a shamrock on it. I cannot say whether they had any arms. 
They had no arms with them in the barrack-room that I was in when we 
were brought up to visit them in this barrack-room or this Irish Brigade 
office. When they came back to Limburg Casement was there, but he 
wa not with them in the barrack-room. When these two men came back 
they stayed in one of the barrack-rooms- down at the top end of this: camp, 
and all the sections of the remaining Irishmen were marched up in sections 
to this Irish Brigade office, and brought before these three men, and asked 
different questions about their country and what they thought of the Irish 
Brigade, and now was the time to fight for old Ireland and gain Home Rule 
once more. There were three men Quinless, and I think the other two 
men were two namesakes, two Keoghs. It happened more than once 
that we were marched up before these men. Some of the men enlisted 
in the Irish Brigade. When the men had joined the Irish Brigade they 
were sent to Berlin. 

Casement then went away for a month. He said he was going away 
for a month, but he never said where he was going to, and he wished to 
see this brigade very strong when he came back. He came back in about 
a month after, and a clergyman, Father Nicholson, came there next. 
When Casement came back he just told these people that joined the Irish 
Brigade when this Irish Brigade was formed they were first to go to help the 
Turks against the Russians. After he came back Sir Roger Casement 
spoke to the men in my hearing. He spoke to them in the camp in 
No. 1 Lines, No. 1 Company, No. 2 Battalion. He used to come into 
the barrack -rooms. He made a speech in several places outside and 
inside in the barrack-rooms he made these speeches. Those are the words 
that passed from Casement on this occasion first of all, the Irish Brigade 
were to go and help the Turks against the Russians, and, secondly, they 
were to go and help the Germans against the British, and, thirdly, they 
were to go and shed blood for their own native country. I heard him say 
those things. I never sa,w Casement after that. There were fifty men 
joined the Irish Brigade up to the time when I came away from Limburg. 
38 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Neill 

The treatment and food got very bad. We noticed there was a great 
difference in it from, the first time we went to Limburg. We were well 
treated for about a fortnight, or near that; then the food commenced to 
be reduced. The bread was reduced, the meat was reduced, and potatoes 
were reduced. I came away from Limburg on the 20th May, 1915. 

Crossi-examined by Mr. SULLIVAJST You have told us that you heard 
Sir Roger Casement speak about the Irish Brigade fighting for the Turks 
against the Russians; is that true? Yes, that is true. 

Did you tell anybody that it was Quinless had stated that to you? 
Quinless also stated that. 

At the same time or at a different time? At a different time. 

Who was present when Sir Roger Casement stated it? There were 
about fifty present or more. 

Do you know Michael Moore, of the Royal Army Medical Corps? Was 
he in the camp with you ? You see I forget them all. I could not recog- 
nise every man in the camp. 

(At this stage Michael Moore came into Court.) 

Did you see this man in the camp? I might have seen him, but I 
forget him. 

I will have to have Robinson and Cronin in. Did you know Daniel 
O'Brien in the camp ? No. 

Did you know Michael O'Connor in the camp? Yes. 

Was he present there? Yes, he was in the camp. 

On this occasion? I cannot say on this occasion, but he was in the 
hospital some time in Limburg. 

What date do you fix for the speech about the Turks? I disremember 
the dates. I cannot think of all, you know. 

As near as you can go? I cannot think of any dates. 

Can you fix the date you arrived at Limburg? As far as I can go, 
we arrived at Limburg early in December, 1914. That is as near as I 
can go. 

How long after that did you hear this talk about the Turks ? I have 
heard the talk about the Turks several times. 

How long after that did you hear the talk about the Turks by Sir 
Roger Casement? He just mentioned about the Turks once. 

How long was that after you had arrived in Limburg? Listen, is this 
true, " Casement came back about the 1st of February, 191 5. " Is that 
true? Yes. 

"And Father Nicholson oarne at the same time." Is that true? 
Yes, that is true. Father Nicholson came there about that time. 

Then that is true. Would this be true, that you saw Casement in the 
camp at this time, but he did not speak to you, and you never saw him 
again? Is that true? At the time I never saw him. He went away. I 
have seen him several times in Limburg. 

On this occasion, will you fix the date of the occasion, the only occa- 
sion, so it should be rooted in your mind, that you heard him speak of the 
Turks? I cannot speak to the date I heard him speak of the Turks 
because I disremember. 

You disremember the dates? Yes. 

You cannot say was it early or late? I cannot say. 



Sir Roger Casement. 

John Neill 

Was it the time he came with Father Nicholson? Yes. 

It was the time he came with Father Nicholson? Yes, it was on his 
third visit. 

Did he come with Father Nicholson more than once? No. 

Did you yourself fix the date of Father Nicholson and Sir Roger Case- 
ment coming back to the camp as the 1st February, 1915? I did not. 

Do you remember making the statement of the evidence that you were 
to give? Yes. 

To whom did you make the statement? To some one at the War Office. 

How long ago? On 27th May last. 

Was it taken down in writing in your presence? Yes. 

And you signed it? Yes. 

Was it true? Well, there was a lot of it; very nearly it all was true. 

Am I to understand there was a lot of it that was. not true? You are 
not to understand there was a lot of it that was not true. 

Was it all true? Yes, it was all true. My statement I gave there, 
yes, it was all true, only I did not give them all my statement; I forgot 
something, but brought a lot of it back to my memory since then. 

Listen to the statement that was all true at the time: " Casement 
" came back about the 1st February, 1915, and Father Nicholson came at 
"the same time." Was that true? Yes, that was true. 

About the 1st February, 1915? I cannot fix the date, you know. 

Did you fix the date? To the best of my opinion it was about that 
time he came there. 

" When Casement came back we were marched up to Barrack No. 41 by 
" sections, as usual, and Quinless told us that Casement had told him to tell 
" us that the Irish Brigade was to fight on the Western Front with the 
"Germans against the English, and next to help the Turks against the 
" Russians, and the next was to shed blood for our native country." Did 
you say that? Yes. 

Was that true? Yes. 

" I saw Casement in the camp at this- time, but he did not speak to 
me. I never saw him again." Was that true? On that previous 
evening I did not see him. 

Let me give it you again : "I saw Casement in the camp at this 
"time" this was about the 1st February, 1915, when he came back 
with Father Nicholson " but he did not speak to me. I never saw him 
" again." Is that true? He did not speak to me on that evening. I 
did not see him; he went away out of that camp on that evening, but I 
saw him afterwards. I did not see him again on that evening. 

" I never saw him again "f On that evening. 

Was it true? I will go further. " I heard that he gave an address 
" to the Munsters in their barracks, and that they shouted him down. I 
" could hear the shouting going on." Do you not see you are pointing the 
fact that you never saw him again, although you heard he was in a different 
part of the camp? On that evening he did address the Munster Fusiliers 
in the barracks. 

But you were not there? I was not in the lines. 

You could only hear shouting? He was a, free man in Germany, 
and could go about where he liked. 

Follow me again ; I will give you every opportunity of understanding. 
40 



(C 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Neill 

Was it true, of the 1st February occasion, that lie came to the camp 
with Father Nicholson, you saw him in the camp, but he did not speak 
to you, and you never saw him again? On that evening I never saw 
him again; but he was in the camp several times afterwards, and I saw 
him in the camp; I never saw him again on that evening. 

You heard he gave an address to the Munsters, and could hear the 
shouting 1 Yes . 

But you never saw him? On that evening after. 

Will you give me the date you next saw him? He was in the camp 
every day, I might say. 

But only once with Father Nicholson? Only once with Father 
Nicholson. 

That was about the 1st February? Yes. 

Therefore, assuming you put in the words " You never saw him 
" again that evening/' do not you see that you signed a solemn state- 
ment of your evidence against a man to be tried for his life, that so far 
as that day was concerned he did not speak ? He did not speak to me on 
that day. 

And that was the only day he was there with Father Nicholson? In 
the camp himself and Father Nicholson separated, going through the 
camp. 

I am talking about days? Yes. 

If he did not speak to you that day, he could not have said anything 
about the Turks or Russians or anything else? He spoke about the Turks 
and Russians, and also left orders with this man that joined the Irish 
Brigade to tell the Irishmen that joined the Brigade 

Are you telling us what you heard him say, or repeating what some- 
body else told you; what is it? I am telling you now about him, what 
he said. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTOCE Who is "he "? Sir Roger Casement. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Was it what he said in your presence! In my 
presence and in the presence of about fifty more of our men that when 
they joined this Irish Brigade they were to go and help the Turks against 
the Russians on the Turkish frontier, then after that they were to go and 
help the Germans against the British, and then after that they were to 
go and shed blood for their own native country. 

And after that? He said no more then. He said that in the presence 
of my comrades and myself. 

Did you tell us in your direct examination that was the day he was 
in camp with Father Nicholson; did you tell us that? There was so much 
uproar in this camp at Limburg, it was very hard to remember all that 
was said in it. 

Did you tell us that that happened on the day he came back to the 
camp with Father Nicholson? Yes. 

Then why did you tell the gentleman at the War Office that on that 
day, though you saw him in the camp, he did not speak? It is very hard 
to remember everything; there were a lot of things. 

You told the gentleman at the War Office that though Sir ^ Roger 
Casement did not speak, Quinless did say things on that day? It is very 
hard to remember a lot of things, you know. 

41 



Sir Roger Casement. 

John Neill 

May you be wrong in your recollection? No; I do not think I am 
wrong in my recollection. 

At any time? Yes. 

Now, let us see what happened, and the assurances given you in his 
speech that you did hear. You heard him say he was the organiser of 
the Irish Volunteers, did not you? Yes. 

That he was raising an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

Was it in connection with the Irish Volunteers? Yes. 

Did you hear him say that it had been subscribed for by Irish 
Americans in America? Yes. 

And that they were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

To win Home Rule? Yes. 

Did he say fight in Ireland only? At that time only to fight in 
Ireland. 

That was the basis upon which they were being recruited? Yes. 

Did he say that the war was nearly over? No; he never mentioned 
anything about the war being nearly over. 

Did he speak of what might happen when the war was over? Yes. 

When the war was over, if Germany won, did he say that the Irish 
Brigade could easily be landed in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say, if Germany lost the war, on the other hand, they should 
go to America? Yes. 

So if Germany won, they were to go to Ireland? Yes. 

And if they lost, they were to go to America? Yes. 

Was there any mention of helping them in America, whether they 
could get any money to help along in America? Yes. 

How much? From 10 to 20. 

If they landed in America? Yes. 

Was that speech made more than once in your presence? Only once 
in my presence. 

Can you remember the names of the men who were present and heard 
it? I do not remember the names of all the men who were present, 
but all the men came from Hanover ; the majority of the men who came 
from Hanover were present at that meeting. 

Cronin is in Court now. I ask that he should stand up. (Cronin 
stood up.) 

CRONIN I did not come from Hanover. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am not accusing you of that. Will you face the 
witness-box for the purpose of the question? 

(To witness) Do you know John Cronin here; did you see him in 
the camp? No, I disremember entirely. 

I have given you the names of a number of others. You did know 
Michael O'Connor? Yes, Corporal O'Connor. 

He has been examined. Did you know John Robinson? I dis- 
remember Robinson. 

Did you know a man named James Wilson? I disremember him too. 

I want you to give me the name of a human being who was present 
and heard this speech of Sir Roger Casement on the day that Father 
42 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Neill 

Nicholson was there? There was another one there, but they are prisoners 
there now. 

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL How many times do you 
think you saw Casement altogether? I have seen him a lot of times. 

About how many? I disremember how many times; he was there 
so often in that camp. 

How long were you there? I was there for seven months. 

Was he there at intervals? He was there the first time I landed at 
Limburg. 

How many times not exactly, but roughly do you think you heard 
him speak? I have heard him speak several times, for every time he 
was in the camp he was all the time talking. 

Three, four, or six times, or how many? Nearer forty-six times. 

I do not know, but you can tell us, was it your habit to take notes 
of what he said, and the dates he said the various things ? I cannot speak 
of the datesi he said these things, but every time I saw him in Limburg 
he was always talking to the prisoners a lot, and when I passed quite 
close to him I always heard him speaking of the Irish Brigade. 

Were you badly wounded there? Yes, pretty bad. 

Were you able to get about a little? Yes, I was able to wall?: about. 

When were you first asked about the dates on which he had said 
anything? Who first asked you to say the day or date on which he said 
any particular thing ? This gentleman that came from the War Office 
and took my statement about Sir Roger Casement. 

That was the 27th May, was it not? Yes. 

MICHAEL HUSSET, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am a 
labourer living at Curraghane. I remember the night of the Thursday 
before Good Friday. That night I had been seeing a friend, and I was 
coming home about half-past nine o'clock. When I came home about 
half-past nine I noticed a light out at sea. It was a red light, and it 
lasted for a few seconds; about two seconds. I stood for a while looking 
out at sea at the light. Next morning I went down to the strand to the 
same place where I was that night and where I had seen the light. I 
went there for seaweed. On going there I saw a boat up on the sand- 
banks, above high water. It was at the same place where I had seen the 
light. I have seen that boat since; I have seen it in Court here, but 
not in this Court. I have not seen the boat itself, but I have seen a picture 
of it. I have never seen the boat itself again. I remember going to 
the police barracks at Ardfert. There I saw the boat. With regard to 
the red light I saw out at sea, I think it would be about half a mile out 
at sea at the time I saw it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have no question. 

The Court adjourned. 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Second Day Tuesday, 27th June, 1916. 

Evidence for the Prosecution continued. 

JOHN MCCARTHY, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am a farmer 
at Curraghane, Curragh Head, about a quarter of a mile from the sea. At 
the shore there is a wild and rough sea. I remember Good Friday morning, 
21t April, 1916. I left my house about two o'clock in the morning. 
It was dark then. When I left my house I went along the shore towards 
a well which is over a mile from my house. I did not see anybody or 
anything on my way, nor did I hear anything. I came the same way 
back a*bout four o'clock. The tide was coming in then. I noticed 
the boat that I found ; it was coming before the tide, and about 20 or 30 
yards from high- water mark on the shore. (Shown exhibit No. 7.) That is 
a photograph of the boat. There were four oars floating in the water, 
and I took them up. I could not do anything with the boat; I could not 
move it as it was too heavy, and I had to leave it there. I stayed there 
myself about three-quarters of an hour, and then I went to the house and 
sent my little boy to get a neighbour, Pat Driscoll, to help me with the 
boat. He and I shifted the boat up a small bit, but we could not do much 
as it was too weighty. We got the boat only a little bit out of the 
water. She was full of water, and we had to wait till the tide went down. 
I found a dagger in the boat. (Shown exhibit No. 8.) That is the dagger 
I found. There was nothing else in the boat. I found a tin box on the 
sand. (Shown exhibit No*. 9.) That is the tin box I found. It was up 
on the bank, covered with earth. It was barely covered over. There 
was a little hole made in the earth and a little wash of earth over it. 
Some of the earth had been washed away. The box was hitched up with 
strand cords, and I did not open it. I noticed three footprints on the sand. 
I did not notice anything more. I did not see anybody at the time. 

By Mr. JUSTICE AVORY The three footprints that I saw were the prints 
of three men. 

Examination continued These prints were going in the direction of 
my house from the boat. I did not notice whether or not there were any 
marks of nails in the boots. I could see the footmarks 
for parts of the way, but in other parts of the way I could not see 
them. I traced them for about 20 or 30 yards in the direction of 
my house. I could not see whether they ended at my house or not; I 
could not find them near my house at all. When I was coming back with 
Driscoll, after he had helped me with the boat, I met my little girl, who 
is about eight years of age. She was playing with these revolvers that 
I now see in exhibit No. 10. Two of them were out of the cases, and 
I took them to the house with me. Along with the revolvers- there was 
a sort of bag, which is exhibit No. 11. I found it where I got the 
revolvers. I took them to the house with me, and I sent Pat Driscoll to 
44 




The Boat found by M'Carthy, of Curraghane. 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John M'Carthy 

the barracks at Ardfert. The police came then, and I gave these things 
up to them. They also saw the boat, but I was at the boat before them 
when they came back to me. Coming back from the shore, -when I had 
seen the boat, I did not see anything else, but the pfolice got two bags. 
I was there when they found them. (Shown exhibits; Nos. 12 and 13.) 
These are the bags they found. Th boat, the oars, the bags, the tin 
box, the dagger, and the pistol were carried to the barracks; I had to 
carry them up in my cart with a horse. I think the police also got some 
life-jackets. (Shown exhibit No*. 14.) I wasi there when these were 
found, and they were all carried to the barracks. The sea was very 
rough that morning. I did not notice any footprints in my own yard. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN Do you usually get up at two 
o'clock in the morning? No. 

Or had you been to bed at all? Yes. 

Then you got up this morning at two o'clock in the morning 1 Yes. 

What got you up so early? I went to a, well. 

Thirsty? No. 

What brought you to the well? Saying a few prayers. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It was Good Friday morning, it being a holv 
well. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Being Good Friday morning, did you say it was 1 a 
holy well? I heard the old people keep saying it was. 

Were you ever saying your prayers at the well before? No. 

It is a long way from your house? Over a mile. 

A dark night; a pretty dark night, was it not? It was when I was 
leaving. 

You left in the dark, having got up at two o'clock in the morning to 
say prayer at a well you had never been to before? Yes. 

What made you do it on this particular morning? All your life you 
had been living at Curraghane, had you not? Yes. 

What urged you, was it your conscience, to get up at two o'clock 
in the morning? It was to say a few prayers 1 . 

Whereabouts is the well? Would you describe where in the country 
it is in what direction ? It was to the north of my house where I live. 

What is the name of the well ? It is an Irish well ; I could not think 
of it. 

If it is an Irish name you ought to think of it all the sooner, though 
we are in a strange country? I have not the Irish. 

You have not the Irish of it, but whereaboutsi is it? Would you 
describe it to me? What is the name of the place it is at? Ballyprior. 

You did not meet anybody at this well at two o'clock in the morning ? 
No. 

Nobody else was out on Good Friday morning at two o'clock saying 
prayers at the holy well; is not that so? That is so. 

Nobody else was there? I saw nobody. 

It was dark, and it would be very hard to see anybody, would it not? 
It was clearing for day at that time. 

You prayed at the well; was it at the well you said your prayers? 
Yes. 

For how long? About half an hour. 

45 



Sir Roger Casement. 

John M'Carthy 

What time was it then when you were thinking of going home to 
breakfast? What time was it? I could not exactly tell you; I had no 
time on me. 

You do not wear a watch? No. 

You could not tell what time it was? No. 

Was it daylight now? Yes, it was dawn. 

You did not get home until pretty late that morning ? I did not. 

What time was it by the time you got home? It would be between 
seven and eight o'clock, I should think. 

I mean when you got home the first time; what time was it when 
you got home the first time ? I would get home, I suppose, about six. 

The first time you went home to send the boy? I would get home 
before six o'clock or about six 

You had then spent the whole of that morning on the strand? Yes. 

Did any neighbours come around the boat? Yes, they did. 

How many of them? That I could not tell you ; I did not count them. 

There are not very many neighbours in that part of the country? 
They were a deal together when they heard about the boat. 

A number of them assembled when they heard about the boat; what 
number of them assembled? I should think it would be about fifteen 
to twenty of them there. 

They were tramping up and down all over the place? Yes. 

And of course by the time the police arrived there were the footprints 
of about fifteen or twenty neighbours and many footprints, there were your 
two trips ; what about the little boy and the little girl ; did they go down 
near the boat? Yes. 

And Driecoll, he came down near the boat? Yes. 

So there were too many footprints to be ol any use to the police by 
the time the police arrived, ie not that so? These footprints were there 
before anybody came. 

Owing to your piety on that morning you were able to see the foot- 
prints at the first daylight that came before anybody else was there; is 
not that so? Yes. 

MART GORMAN, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am a servant 
at the house of John Allman, Rathoneen. I remember the morning of 
Oood Friday last, 21st April. I was about that morning at 4.30, and 
I saw three strange men passing the gate. The gate is in the yard. 
They were coming from the sea and going towards Ardfert. I was about 
two yards from them. The light was bright, and I could see what they 
were like then. One was a tall man, another nearly as tall, and the third 
was a small man. The tall man was carrying a knapsack across his 
shoulders and a walking cane and overcoat. The other two wore dark 
clothes too, and carried overcoats. They were walking quickly. I saw 
the face of the tall man. I saw Constable Riley later in the same day, 
and the tall man that I had seen in the morning was with him. I 
recognised him. He is in the Court just now, and I now point out the 
prisoner. The yard in which I was when I saw this man was about two 
miles from the sea. Our house is a mile from the old castle called 
Rathoneen. 
46 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Mary Gorman 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN At what time was it you saw the 
three men passing the gate? 4.30. 

Half-past four? Yes. 

Are you usually out and about at that time of the morning? My usual 
hour is four o'clock. 

THOMAS JOHN HBAKN, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I am a 
sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Ardfert. I 
remember the morning of 21st April last. I got a report that day from 
John McCarthy. A man named Driscoll brought the report to me from 
John McCarthy. I went with another constable to Curraghane, and I went 
down to the strand. I saw John McCarthy and a number of men there. 
I also saw a boat on the strand, and I examined it. I got the assistance 
of the men, and we pulled it on to the sandbanks. (Shown exhibit No. 7.) 
That is a photograph of the boat. After we had pulled the boat up to the 
sandbanks I went with McCarthy to his house, and he handed me a dagger 
and three pistols. (Shown exhibits No. 8 and 10.) These are the dagger 
and pistols. The boat was a flat-bottomed, four-oared boat, having hoods 
at the etem and stern about 11 inches high. It was a flat-bottomed boat 
with a tank on each side air tanks about 11 feet long. The sides 1 were 
made of timber. There is a part at the bow, and that was made of canvas. 
That is what I mean by the word " hood." There was a small hood at the 
stern also of canvas. When McCarthy handed me the pistols and the 
dagger, he also handed me a small black satchel, which is exhibit No. 11 
the one nearest to me on the table. 

I went down with McCarthy to make a further search for pistols where 
the others were found. I examined the satchel, and I found in it a flash 
lamp, portion of a map, and twenty rounds of pistol ammunition. I identify 
the flash lamp, the map, and the twenty rounds of ammunition. The map 
seems to be one of a portion of the coast round Bray. The kind of country 
that we were searching was a flat, deserted country covered with isand piles 
or sandbanks. I made a further search, and I found a brown leather hand- 
bag and three life-belts buried in the sand. (Shown exhibits Noe. 13 and 
14.) These are the brown handbag and the life-belts. The constable who 
was with me found a large black bag, which I now identify as exhibit No. 12. 
I brought the bags into McCarthy's house and searched them. In the 
brown leather bag I found a flash lamp and twenty rounds of ammunition, 
and there were also some maps, but I am not able to say exactly which 
maps they were. They are some of the maps which are in my hand just 
now. There are no maps in the bag now. I sent McCarthy to the strand, 
and he brought back a tin box with him (exhibit No. 9). I examined the 
contents of the tin box, and I found 900 rounds of pistol ammunition in it. 
I examined the three pistols, and they were loaded. I got McCarthy's horse 
and cart, and put all these things on the cart, and then I went to the 
strand and put the boat on the cart there, and it was taken off to the 
police station. 

On the way to the police station I met Constable Macklin, and I had 
a conversation with him. I left him with the horse and cart, and I cycled 
back to the barracks myself. I took Constable Riley along with me. Riley 
and I took our carbines with us, loaded them, and went and searched the 

47 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Thomas J. Hearn 

country. We found a man at a place called M'Kenna's Fort. It is a circular 
Irish ruin, with a trench all round it varying from 9 to 14: feet deep. It 
is all covered with brushwood. In the fort I saw the prisoner who is now in 
the dock. I found him at 1.20 in the afternoon. I spoke to him and asked 
him what he was doing there. He replied, " By what authority do you 
" ask me the question, and am I bound to answer you? " I then said that 
I would ask him any question I wished, and he was bound to answer me, 
and, if he did not, I would arrest him under the Defence of the Realm Regu- 
lations. I asked him his name, and he replied " Richard Morton, Denham, 
Bucks." I asked him what was hie occupation, and he said he was an 
author. I asked him to give me the name of some book he had written, and 
he said he had written a book on the life of St. Brendon. I asked him what 
port he arrived at in Ireland, and he said Dublin. He also said that he came 
to County Kerry and went to Mount Brandon, and had come from Mount 
Brandon to the fort where I had found him. He said he arrived there at 
8 o'clock in the morning Good Friday morning, 21st April. I asked him 
if he had any passport or papers about him, and he said he had none. I 
asked him where h'e was going to, and he said he intended to go to Tralee. 
I have told the Court the whole of the conversation that passed at that 
time. I noticed that the lower portion of his pants was wet, and that there 
was sea sand on his boots. I took him away then to bring him to the police 
station on to the public road, and as I came to the public road I met a little 
boy named Martin Collins. He had a pony and trap. I got him into the 
trap with Constable Riley, and I sent Riley with him to the house of Mary 
Gorman, and I followed on foot. I was not with them when they saw 
Mary Gorman. I remained on the road till Riley returned with the prisoner, 
and when he came back I took him to the police station. From the police 
station he was taken to Tralee. After bringing him to the police station 
I searched him and charged him with being concerned with the landing of 
arms on the coast of Ireland. I cautioned him, and he replied, " Can I 
"see a lawyer?" 

On searching him I found five sovereigns and eleven shillings. 
Constable Riley helped me to search him. I did not see Riley taking any- 
thing from his pockets; I was not present on the occasion. In the black 
bag I found a large flag, a green and yellow flag, with a representation of 
a castle in the centre and some foreign language underneath. I now 
identify the flag that I found in the black bag. In the black bag I also 
found a pair of field glasses, a flash lamp, 40 rounds of ammunition, and 
some wearing apparel. I found a number of maps also in the black bag. 
These were the remainder of the maps I had in my hands just now. I 
found a piece of paper attached to one of the maps. (Shown exhibit No. 
17.) That is the piece of paper that was found attached to the maps. 
The paper found in the black bag seems to be a kind of diary, and it 
begins, " February 16, left Cork, arrived Dublin 12 p.m., 
February 19, Mary Mac. F. left Dublin, February 23 she went 
" to Cork, February 23, Murray to Castle, referred H.J.S. 26th, ill in 
" bed; 26th, left Dublin; 27th, ill there," and a number of further entries, 
ending up with entries on April 7th, " agreed at last, 7 p.m. ; 8th again." 
Then it looks like Hevesham, I think, and then " llth April, left Dublin 
"for Wicklow; 12th April, left Wicklow in Willie's yacht." I found that 
48 




L 






Part of the Diary, -with disguised, names and places. 
(Page l.) 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Thomas J. Hearn 

in the bag. I have looked through those maps which were found in the 
black bag, and the remainder in the brown bag. I afterwards made a 
further search at the fort, and I found a portion of a lunch similar to what 
was found in the black bag. The lunch was rolled up in paper. (Shown 
exhibit No. 5.) I cannot say whether that was the paper in which the 
lunch was wrapped ; it was not I who found that paper. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN How long were you stationed at 
Ardfert? Seven years. 

That is from 1909? Yes. 

With regard to this place that you found Sir Roger Casement, it is 
spoken of as a fort? Yes. 

It is not a fort as we understand it in the present day? No. 

It is one of those old ruins? An old Danish ruin. 

Perhaps a couple of thousand years old? Yes. 

Sir Roger was unarmed? Yes, he was. 

He had no offensive weapons of any kind? No. 

Or defensive weapons? No. 

At all events, he was not in the fort for any martial purpose as far 
as you could see; is not that clear? I cannot say that. 

When you arrested him did he ask you, or when you cautioned him 
did he ask you, whether he oould have the services of a lawyer? He did. 

And did you answer him that he would enjoy all the privileges of the 
British Constitution? No. 

What did you say to him? I said, of course, he could have a lawyer. 

You did not refer to the British Constitution? No. 

You have suggested, I think, that Sir Roger Casement was hiding in 
the fort; in what portion of the fort was he? He was at the furthest end 
of the fort from the main road; the fort is 98 yards off the public road, 
and he was at the further end of it. 

Could not you see him? No, I could not see him, not till we got into 
the fort. 

That is to say, he was in the centre of the circle? No, he was outside, 
sitting in the trench, outside the ring of the fort. 

Ouiisiide the ring of the fort? Yes. 

You eventually arrested him, and charged him, you say, with landing 
arms? Yes. 

Do you remember, in 1914, before the war, the Arms Proclamation? 
Yes. 

As an officer of the constabulary, were you concerned in acting under 
it for a while? Yes. 

Prior to that had there been considerable importation of arms? Yes. 

As a matter of common knowledge in the country, was there, prior 
to that, a very large importation of arms in the north of Ireland? Yes. 

Was it in consequence of what happened in the north of Ireland that 
the people were arming so far south as Tralee ? I could not say that. 

Did they, at all events, purport to be arming? They did. 

As against the armed person in the north of Ireland? Yes. 

Were they bearing arms openly? They were. 

Without interference by the public authorities? Yes. 
E 49 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Thomas J. Hearn 



And actually on the outbreak of war was the proclamation against 
the importation of arms withdrawn on the 16th August? Ye, that is so. 

And your directions, even so far as they went to interfere with the 
importation of arms, ceased on the 16th August on the withdrawal of the 
proclamation for the time being? Yes. 

And the arming of the population went on then unrestricted for a 
while? Yes. 

And the parade of arms uninterfered with by any authority? Yes. 

People drilling? Yes. 

Marching ? Yes . 

Skirmishing through the country? Yes. 

Without any action taken on behalf of the police. This arming, of 
course, commenced before the war, did it not? Yes, it did. 

It commenced some time in 1913 in the south, did it not? Yes. 

It had commenced earlier in the north? Yes. 

Was there a great deal of excitement in the south with regard to the 
reports of what was going on in the north of Ireland? There was. 

I suppose at the police barracks even in Ardfert they read the 
papers ? Yes. 

What papers did you take in the barracks at Ardfert? The Cork 
Examiner and the Independent. 

I suppose you read the speeches that were being circulated through 
your district by the Cork Examiner and the Independent^ Yes. 

And you took no steps to prevent the circulation of the speeches 
that appeared in those journals? No. 

They reported speeches urging armament on both sides, the Inde- 
pendent, at all events; they reported the speeches up in the north as 
well as the speeches in the south, did not they? Yes. 

The LORD CkiEP JUSTICE Are you speaking of before or after the 
war? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Before the war. 

(To witness) And their circulation with these speeches you have told 
me was in no wise hampered by the police authorities? No. 

Did you notice in the speeches reported with regard to the arming 
in the north of Ireland that the justification for the arming in the north 
of Ireland purported to be that the majority of members of Parliament 
for English constituencies objected to the Home Rule Bill; was that put 
forward in the Ulster speeches? Yes. 

And that although there was a majority in the House of Commons 
in favour of the bill, that its opponents in the north were justified in 
arming to resist it because the English members disapproved of it? Yes. 

And were speeches reported to that effect, not only by Irishmen in 
the north of Ireland, but were there speeches to the same effect reported 
as having been delivered by distinguished Englishmen from English con- 
stituencies who attended these great meetings? Yes. 

And did those speeches in your district greatly affect and agitate 
the minds of the people ? Well, not in the locality where I am stationed. 

Not in Ardfert? No. 

But in the south generally? Yes. 
50 






Evidence for Prosecution. 

Thomas J. Hearn 

Do you remember shortly before the war broke out the excitement 
in the south being accentuated by what was known as the Curragh inci- 
dent? Yes. 

By that time the arming of Ireland, north and south, had gone 
entirely beyond the control of the police, had it not? Yes. 

If there was to be any protection for the peaceable population from 
that armed on either side it would lie with the military? Yes. 

After the Curragh incident was not there very grave unrest amongst 
the people of the country as to whether they could trust that the military 
would protect them against the Ulster armed Volunteers? It was believed 
there was not enough military in the country for their protection at the 
time. 

And the Curragh incident had thrown some doubt on their willing- 
ness to act, had it not? Yes. 

In that state of affairs, having neither police nor military competent 
to protect one, it was left to people in Ireland to protect themselves, is 
not that the truth of it? Generally speaking, it is. 

Generally speaking that was the truth of it. Now, as you say, when 
the war broke out the Arms Proclamation was withdrawn and the arming 
went on as before? Yes. 

And continued right up to last month? Yes. 

Except so far as hampered by the Defence of the Realm Regulations? 
Yes. 

Your charge against Sir Roger Casement was a charge made under 
the Defence of the Realm Regulations? Yes. 

Although the Defence of the Realm Regulations may have hampered 
the importation of arms, was the drilling of armed men still permitted 
to take place without interference by the civil authorities? Yes. 

They continued as before? They did. 

Marching, counter-marching, and getting up skirmishing and sham 
battles all over the country? Yes. 

Were there frequent complaints from the civil population of this 
matter being tolerated? Yes. 

And the police were powerless to protect them from it? Is not that 
so? Yes, powerless. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: To protect them against what? I do not 
quite follow. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN These armed people were tramping all over the 
country 1 Yes. 

They marched on every man's property as they wished? Yes. 

They fought their sham battles in any part of the land they chose 
for themselves, is not that so? That is right. 

And the police were powerless to interfere with them? Yes. 

Do you remember after the war broke out that the Home Rule Bill 
passed as we know; it is in the statutes? Yes. 

But that an Act of Parliament was passed suspending its coming into 
operation ? Yes. 

That is also in the statutes. Did that greatly accentuate the feeling 
of unrest in the country? Yes. 

51 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Thomas J. Hearn 

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I am not going through all 
this with you, but is the result of what you said that the country where 
you were stationed was at the time seething with unrest? Yes. 

And that some of the people had arms? Yes. 

The landing of arms and ammunition from abroad in that country, 
what kind of effect would that have had? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I object to any speculative question; there were some 
arms landed, three pistols and 900 rounds of ammunition. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You took up the subject which Mr. Solicitor 
is entitled to explain. 

By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL What effect would the landing of a cargo, 
I do not say three pistols, but a cargo of arms and ammunition in that 
country have had upon the population? It would have had a very grave 
effect. 

It has been put to you that the people were arming only against the 
Ulstermen from the north; is that so? Partly against Ulster and partly 
against conscription. 

By Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE You know the place where the boat was 
found? Yes. 

You know the place where you say you found Sir Roger Casement? 
Yes. 

Is the house at which the woman Mary Gorman was a servant, John 
Allman's house, on the way from where the boat was to where you found 
him in the fort? Oh, no. 

How far out of the way? From where I found the boat to where 
I found him in the fort would be about two English miles across country. 

How far out of the route was the house of this man at which Mary 
Gorman says she saw him about? That would be within 480 yards of this 
fort. 

The house where she lived? Yes. 

BERNARD RILET, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am a constable in the 
Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Ardfert. I was with Sergeant 
Hearn on the morning of 21st April. I remember going with him towards 
Rathoneen in the direction of Curraghane. We searched about in that 
direction, and we came to a place which is called M'Kenna's Fort, where 
we saw a man. I now identify that man as the prisoner. When I first 
saw him his head and shoulders were appearing over some shrubbery in 
the fort. He had not seen me; he was looking in a different direction. 
I had my rifle with me. I went in his direction, and immediately he 
turned towards me I put up my carbine and covered him. I told him to 
stand where he was, quite close to me; that my rifle was loaded, and if 
he moved a foot I should shoot him. He said that was a nice way to 
treat an English traveller. I cautioned him, and he said, " I am not 
" armed; I will not do you any harm." I called for Sergeant Hearn, 
and he came up after a few minutes. There was a conversation between 
the sergeant and the prisoner, and after that the prisoner was taken 
into custody. I took him back to Allman's house, where Mary Gorman 
was employed as a servant. The little boy Collins was driving a vehicle 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Bernard Riley 

towards Allman's house, and the prisoner and I had a lift in his cart. 
I saw Mary Gorman and she saw the prisoner. We went back again 
from Mary Gorman's on foot. When we got some way I saw Martin 
Collins again. Sergeant Hearn and the prisoner remained on the public 
road, and I went inside to search the fort for the other two men believed 
to be there. 

Returning to the public road, Martin Collins was there; he had fol- 
lowed us up. Martin Collins spoke to me on the way to Ardfert, and 
he gave me two pieces of paper. I put my initials on them to identify 
them. (Shown exhibit No. 18.) These are the two pieces of paper 
which Martin Collins gave me. They appear to be typewritten or partly 
typewritten, and against each sentence in typewriting there is a number 
put. On the back of the paper there is some writing in pencil in the 
English language. The numbers are nearly consecutive 00611, 00621, 
00631, 00632, and so on, all of them beginning with 00, and the 
remainder of the figures are nearly consecutive, though not quite. There 
is one number against each sentence. It begins with sentences. 
The first is : " Cease communications with. 7 ' Then they go on : " Await 
"further instructions"; "Await favourable opportunity 7 '; "Agent has 
" started for "; " Agent will start for "; " Agent is underways for "; 
"Send agent at once"; "Keep agent back"; "Call agent back"; 
" Proposal accepted "; " Proposal refused "; " Proposal must be recon- 
" sidered "; " Proposal not plainly enough explained "; " Please answer 
' by letter " ; ' ' Answer follows by letter " ; " It is impossible to stay at" ; 
' Have moved on for " ; " Have decided to stay," and then " Direct your 
' attention on." In the photograph it looks to be in ink so as to make 
1 j " into " y " by having a little loop in front. Then " Take up 
'communication with"; "Nothing further is known"; "Nothing 
' further has been heard from " ; " We have our positions at " ; " Letter 
' received " ; " Letter not received " ; "A letter will follow " ; " Letters 
'are not sure"; "Do not send further letters"; " Communi- 
" cation again possible " ; " Our chiffre is compromised " ; " Railway com- 
" munications have been stopped "; " Enquiries must be made about "; 
" Our men are at "; " Further ammunition is needed " ; " Further rifles 
"are needed"; "How many rifles will you send us?" "How much 
" ammunition will you send us? " " Will send plan about landing on " ; 
" Await details about sending on " ; " Preparations are made about"; 
' We have heard from " ; " More detailed information is not to be got " ; 
' My cable adress is " ; "My adress for letters is " ; "Send communi- 
' cations to the adress of"; " Give me new adress for " ; " Last wire 
'has not been understood"; "Send another ship to"; "Send rifles 
'and ammunition to"; "Cannons with plenty of ammunition are 
"needed"; "Send them to"; "Send more explosives" "Send vessel 
"if possible." I have seen the figure " 7 " on the paper, and I see a 
little mark across each down stroke of the " 7." That is not an Irish way 
of writing the figure " 7," but it is an Irish way of making a capital 
"F." The Irish way of writing the figure "7 " is the same as the 
English way of writing the figure "7." I do not write Irish myself. 
The pencil writing reads: "If any message sent, use 'Clifton wire 7 ; 

53 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Bernard Riley 

" friends ready to receive our messages at 2 a.m. middle Greenwich 
"time. Begin always ' Sectpol ' and rest in our cipher. This holds 
"good from 22nd April till 20th May. If by then no news, the friend's 
" station will be closed for good; after that only by cable to Mr. Hehlin, 
" Davos Village, Switzerland." Signed " James Kingsley." I see 
some letters below the words "James Kingsley," but I do not know 
whose handwriting these letters are in. They are not mine. The last 
one looks like "e" or " c," and the first looks like " n." There is 
no place named Clifton in that part of Ireland that I know of. 

The prisoner was taken to the police station and was searched. I 
took part in that. In his waistcoat pocket there was exhibit No. 16. That 
was in the inside pocket of the vest he was wearing. I looked at it, and 
I remarked to him, " This is not Irish," meaning what was written on it in 
pencil. He said, " I do not know, I have never seen it before." What 
appears to be written on it is " Moller, Hensingfors, Kroner 34." 

That day I went back to M'Kenna's Fort, and I found three topcoats 
(exhibits Nos. 19, 20, and 21). I remember seeing No. 19 looked at and 
searched through. There was nothing found on it in my presence. I first 
saw exhibit No. 31, with the district inspector at Tralee, Mr. Britten. On 
27th April I went back again to the fort, and on that occasion I found a 
piece of paper in the fort. (Shown exhibit No. 15.) That is the piece 
of paper I found. It has some pencil writing on it, but I cannot read it; 
it appears to be in a foreign language. When I arrested Casement I 
noticed that there was some sand on the green woollen muffler he was 
wearing, and that the ends of the muffler were slightly damp and wet. His 
boots also had sand in them, and all the coats were quite wet sodden. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN You say there is no such place as 
Clifton in that immediate neighbourhood? Not to my knowledge. 

How long are you stationed in Ardfert? About six years. 

Are you a native of the district? No. 

What part of the country do you come from? I come from Ulster. 

This place that you searched, how long after the arrest was it that 
you searched it for the overcoats? I should say about an hour afterwards, 
say, between one and two hours. 

Between one and two hours afterwards you found the overcoats there. 
Had you made any search originally? Through the fort? 

Yes? Yea, I had, for men. 

^ou apparently had not noticed the overcoats? They passed my 
notice. They were covered by the shrubbery. They were folded up and 
hidden in the shrubbery. 

And they escaped your notice in that way? Yes. 

With regard to this paper (exhibit No. 15), you have that paper before 
you, and you cannot find any English word or words that you can recognise 
on it, can you? Except my own initials. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There are your initials; it was merely 
for identification that you put them on? Yes, my lord. 

MARTIN COLLINS, examined by the SOLICITOR- GENERAL I live at 
Ardfert. My father is- a farmer. I am twelve and a half years old. I 
remember last Good Friday morning. I was going back to my uncle's 
54 






*r 

3t 

:*; 



' 






Sentences. 




cease common icq t i ons with 
father instruct tons 
lag oratil , opportun ity 




/or 

underpays for 
send agent at once 




Wll etpen back 

pr^jBOsal accepted 

proposal refused " 

propQajil must be ^re 

jprQ>pQ9al not plainly enough explained 

please answer by letter 



?iaa not 6<f#n me : ^e fifed: 
foil POM by 'leiifwl^' r ' 
it is impossible to stay &t 
. nvae Mooed am for 
have deceided to stay 




- . 

take up communication with 

nothing further its "known 

nothing further has been heard from 

tee have our positions at 

letter received ^ ^ 

2#fier no* received 

a letter toill fellow 

letter^ are not ahure 

dont send further letters 

communi'cat i on aga in p oss ibl e 

our ohlffr* is compromised 
railway communi cations have been stopped 
enquieries must be made about 
an&men are at 

further ammunition is needed 
f&ti^'ri flea are needed 
hate many rifles will ygu ^9_enA^.tUL' 
hoto much ammition will you send us 
mill mend, plan about landing of 
ateatt details about sending of 
preparations are made about 



detailed information is not to >* IP^I 
*Jfv adress fsr 

/or letters "i* 
*^wl<?aln '. *^* agrees 



%, n **a r 

f. has not been undestood 




Part of the Secret Code picked up by the boy, Martin Collins. 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Martin Collins 

place in a pony and trap. I came near a place called M'Kenna's Fort, 
which I know. I saw some people there Constable Riley, Sergeant Hearn, 
and a strange man. I have seen the strange man since. Looking round 
the Court I see him there; he is the prisoner. I stopped. The police 
were coming out from the fort at the time with the strange man. As 
the strange man was crossing the fence he dropped some papers from behind 
his back. Constable Riley asked me to give him a drive back as far as 
John Allman's, my uncle's, and I did that. Constable Riley and the strange 
man got into my cart, and I drove them back to John Allman's. I heard 
Constable Riley ask for Mary Gorman, and then he asked her if the strange 
man was the man she had seen in the morning, and Mary Gorman said 
"yes." I stayed at Allman's for half an hour. I was going to Tralee, 
and I stopped at the fort again, and Tom Doone went in and picked up the 
papers and gave them to me, and I gave them to Constable Riley. Tom 
Doone is a boy who is younger than I am. He found the papers at the 
place where I saw the strange man brought out. (Shown exhibit No. 18.) 
That is the piece of paper I saw the prisoner drop. It was torn like that 
when I got it. I looked at it, and then I gave it to Constable Riley. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN Did you see this boy, Tom Doone, 
actually pick up the paper? Yes. 

Was the paper lying there on the ground in your view? Yes. 

As you drove along the road? Yes. 

You could see the paper from the trap as you drove along the road, 
could you? I saw the strange man drop the paper. 

Did you see the paper on the ground after he had dropped it? Yes. 

It was visible from the road, was it? Yes. 

Had you your dinner at Allman's? I had. 

How long did you remain there ? Half an hour. 

You drove up and saw Mary Gorman? Yes. 

And heard this conversation? Yes. 

And had your dinner? Yes. 

And got back in half an hour? Yes. 

FREDERICK AMBROSE BRITTEN, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I 
am district inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary. On 21st April I 
saw three overcoats in the custody of the police. One of these is exhibit 
No. 19, and I took a piece of paper from the pocket of that coat. Exhibit 
No. 31 is the document that I took from the pocket. It is a first-class 
sleeping railway ticket from Berlin to Wilhelmshaven, dated 12th April, 
1916. I know a little German. I see a number of figures down the left- 
hand side of exhibit No. 18. I notice the way in which the figure 7 ia 
made. I should say that it is very like a German 7. Exhibit No. 15 is 
written in German and in German characters. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN What is your headquarters? 
Tralee. 

How long are you stationed in Tralee? Five years. 

I suppose you read the papers? Sometimes. 

What paper do you read? Anything I can get hold of the Irish 
Timts, the Independent 

The Irish Times is the one that you take for preference, I think? Yes. 

55 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Frederick A. Britten 



I want to know whether you read the Irish Times of 14th July, 1913. 
I can give you a copy to look at (newspaper handed to witness)? I could 
not tell you. 

Will you turn to page 8. Did you read the account of those speeches 
of the July anniversary celebration of the 12th July? No, I should think 
not. I do not remember reading it. 

Will you just glance through it. There are some striking matters 
in it. Will you look at the bottom of the second column on that page, 
about 30 lines up, the passage beginning " I hope it will never be for- 
gotten in that context, as regards the second reading of this bill the other 
day " 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The difficulty of it is, so far the witness 
has said he has not read it. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Will you look at the passage commencing with those 
words, and see whether 'you have not read that before? I am sure I read 
something like it. 

Will you read it through again and make sure whether that is not 
what you did read before? I could not possibly make sure whether I read 
it before or not. 

That is the paper you usually read, and it is circulated in the town of 
which you are the district inspector? Yes. 

It was something to this effect, at all events : " I hope it will not be 
" forgotten in that context, as regards the second reading of this bill the 
" other day, there was as regards England, the predominant partner, a 
" majority upon the division of over 30 against the bill? " Yes. 

That is against the Home Rule Bill? Yes. 

Now, will you look higher up in that column, three lines before the 
cross-heading, and see if you do not remember reading that before, 
circulating in your district? I do not quite know where you mean. 

You see " Confidence in " as a sub-heading? Yes. 

Just above that you see a passage commencing "We can rely." Do 
you remember reading something to that effect? I remember reading that 
sort of talk. 

" We can rely not only on thousands but tens of thousands of people 
" in England who are prepared to assist us." There was any amount of 
that sort of speaking going on? In the papers. 

Some of them were perhaps more definite. Then in the very last para- 
graph of the meeting that is reported there, do you see a passage beginning 
" In England they were prepared to stand " ? Who is speaking, whose 
speech is it? 

I will give you the name if you wish, but I am a little diffident about 
it. It is the very last paragraph of the eloquent speech that closed the 
meeting except the vote of thanks? There are so many meetings in 
different parts of Ireland, and they are mixed up together. 

I will mark the passage for you if you wish it. That is the passage 
I want you to look at. Did you read passages of this kind circulating in 
your district " They would be right in resisting it by force, and in their 
" determination to resist it they would have the sympathy and support of 
" thousands of people in England, and amongst those thousands he had 
"the greatest pleasure in reckoning himself." You remember speeches 
to that effect, at all events ? Either speeches or comment to that effect. 
56 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Frederick A. Britten 

They were circulated broadcast through the country? No doubt. 

(Irish Times of 14th July, 1913, marked exhibit No. 37.) Now I will 
turn to the issue of 18th September, 1913. I have marked two passages in 
that issue. Have you read that passage between the parallel ink columns, 
" Sir Edward Carson in Ulster." Have you read that or speeches to that 
effect about that time circulating? Yes, it is always the* same. 

" He could add this as a word of partial assurance, that they had many 
' powerful friends in England who thought as he did. It was all very well 
' to talk of the great forces which, were marshalled behind the Government 
* and which could be used in the event of extreme necessity in Ulster. The 
' reply to that was that the forces of the Crown were the servants of the 
' nation, and at least one-half of the nation believed that the employ- 
' ment of this force would be a monstrous crime " ? Yes. 

Now, will you turn to the next page. I have marked for you, " If the 
" resolution of Ulster were put to the test, they would find those in England 
" who had felt it their duty to encourage the men of Ulster in their attitude, 
" and who would be prepared to prove by their deeds that when they said 
" that Ulster was right they meant Ulster was right, and who would be 
''prepared to share the risk"? Yes. 

Then there is one other eloquent passage I want to deal with. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Have we not gone far enough into this? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Very well, my lord, I at once accept the suggestion. 

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL Were those speeches made 
before the war? Yes. 

There is nothing about entering the service of Germany? No. 

Or helping the Germans to invade Ireland? No. (Irish Times of 
18th September, 1913, marked exhibit No. 38.) 

ROBERT WILLIAM LARKE, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am a constable 
in the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Ardfert. On Good Friday, 
21st April, I went to the sand at Curraghane, and I found a black bag. It 
was buried in the sand. There were some things in it when I found it. 
These were placed in M'Carthy's cart and taken to the barracks. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have no question. 

JAMES BUTLER, examined by Mr. BRANSON I am a sergeant in the 
Royal Irish Constabulary, and on 22nd April last I conveyed the prisoner, 
Sir Roger Casement, from Tralee to Dublin by train. As the train was 
approaching Killarney Station the prisoner asked whether he could have a 
newspaper, and I said "yes." The train stopped at the station. The 
head constable of Killarney was at the station, and he came to the carriage 
door where we were. He said something to me, and the prisoner heard 
what he said. The head constable said, " Did you hear what happened to 
"the two lads at Puck"? I said "No." The head constable replied, 
" They ran into the tide and were drowned." Puck is about 20 miles from 
Tralee. Its proper name is Killorglin. On the train leaving the station 
the prisoner commenced to sob and cry, and remained so for some time. 
He then turned round to me and asked me where was Puck; was it near 
Castlemaine Bay, and I said it was. Then after a while he said, " I am 
"very sorry for those two men; they were good Irishmen; it was on my 

57 



Sir Roger Casement. 



James Butler 



"account they came over here." I had also some conversation with the 
prisoner at Mallow Station. When the train arrived at Mallow Station we 
had to change and get into another train, and during the interval we were 
waiting for it I asked him had he ever been to Mallow before, and he replied 
and said he knew the Blackwater well. The town of Mallow is built on the 
Blackwater. On arriving at King's Bridge Station, Dublin, on the way to 
Harbour Hill Barracks, we both left in a cab, and while in the cab he asked 
me, did I think he would be able to get a bed when he arrived at the 
destination, and I said I thought he would. Then he said he felt very tired, 
that he had been up twelve nights. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN The place called Puck is in fact the 
town of Killorglin? Yes. 

The natives pronounce it in one syllable? Quite so. 

As a matter of fact, this accident you are speaking about at Killorglin 
had happened some days before, had it not? On the day before, I think. 

But it had happened at a distance of, I suppose, 30 miles, at all 
events, from Curraghane? Yes, about that, 30 miles. 

The two men in question who were drowned are not men whose names 
we have heard mentioned in this case. Is not that so? That is so, but it 
was not known at the time who they were. 

There is a slip at Killorglin where the road runs down, and a motor 
car had run off the slip into the tide, and the two men had got drowned ? 
Yes. 

It is not the first time that a motor car has run off that slip into the 
water, but at that time it was not known who the two men were? It was 
not known at that time. 

But, as it afterwards transpired, they were not men that we are 
dealing with in the present case? No, I do not think so. 

FREDERICK WHITTAKER, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am a 
sergeant-major of the Military Provost Staff Corps. I was on duty on 
Saturday, 22nd April, at the Harbour Hill Barracks, Dublin, when I 
received the prisoner Casement into my custody from Sergeant Butler. I 
received at the same time three bags (exhibits Nos. 11, 12, and 13) and 
the tin box (exhibit No. 9), and also three overcoats, which were then 
in a brown paper parcel. I handed over my prisoner to the custody of 
Sergeant Bracken, and the property to Sergeant O'Donnell, of New Scotland 
Yard. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 

THOMAS BRACKEN, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I am a 
sergeant of the Military Foot Police, stationed at Ship Street Barracks, 
Dublin. On 22nd April I went to the Military Detention Barracks with an 
escort, and I received from the sergeantrmajor in charge of the barracks 
the prisoner, Sir Roger Casement. I took him via Holyhead to Euston 
Station, London, arriving there on the morning of the 23rd April. I there 
handed him over to the custody of the Metropolitan Police. I brought over 
some property at the same time. I did not bring three bags, but I brought 
some money and a penknife. I handed the property to the police there. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 
58 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Joseph Sandercock 

JOSEPH SANDERCOCK, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am an inspector of 
the Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard. I went on the 
early morning of 23rd April to Euston Station and met the prisoner on 
his arrival by the Irish mail. I received him into my custody from Sergeant 
Bracken. On arriving at New Scotland Yard I told the accused that I was 
an inspector of police, and that he would be detained pending inquiries 
as to a charge that would be preferred against him later. He said, " Do 
" you know who I am "1 I replied, " Yes." He added, " I am Sir Roger 
" Casement, and the only person to whom I have disclosed my identity is a 
" priest at Tralee in Ireland." The accused was about to make a statement 
when I cautioned him, and told him that anything he said would be taken 
down and used in evidence for or against him at hi trial. I informed him. 
that he would be seen by responsible officials at 10 o'clock that day, to 
which he replied, " I have nothing further to say now." Later on he 
was taken to Brixton Prison, and, later on again, on 25th April, to the 
Tower of London. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 

SYDNEY RAY WAGHOBN, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I am 
leading seaman on H.M.S. "Bluebell." On 21st April last I was leading 
signalman. I remember last Good Friday, 21st April. I waa on board the 
" Bluebell " on that day, off the south-west coast of Ireland. I remember 
on the evening of that day sighting another ship. When I sighted this other 
ship we were about 90 miles off the south-west coast of Ireland. I cannot 
give the position more closely than that. This other ship was about 15 
miles from us when I first saw her. We got nearer to her. She was 
flying Norwegian colours. They were painted on each side two forward 
and two aft. I was ordered to signal to her. I signalled her, asking her 
name and where she was bound, and she replied " ' Aud/ bound for Genoa. " 
I gave her some orders ; I told her we were taking her to Queenstown, and 
I told her that she was to follow us. She did not follow us not at once 
and my vessel fired a round across her bows. I knew that Queenstown 
was, roughly, 138 miles- from us to the eastward. After we fired the shot 
she then followed us. We got within 3 miles of Queenstown. There is a 
lightship there called Daunt' s light- vessel. When we got near that light- 
vessel something happened; the " Aud " stopped her engines. The 
"Bluebell" was a cable's length from the " Aud " when the "Aud" 
stopped her engines. After she stopped her engines I noticed a cloud of 
white smoke issuing from the after-hold on the starboard side. She then 
showed two German naval ensigns at the masthead. She lowered two boats, 
and men got into them and pulled towarda the "Bluebell." The "Blue- 
bell" fired a round across the bows again. The boats then put up a flag 
of truce, and the men in the boats put up their hands. They were taken 
on board the " Bluebell." There were twenty-three altogether. Twenty of 
them were German bluejackets, and three were officers. Two of them were 
German naval officers; I could not say for certain what officer the third 
one was. When the men were taken on board the " Bluebell " they were 
placed under an armed guard. After that the "Aud" sank. The smoke 
issuing from her side and the sinking of the " Aud " all happened in about 
ten minutes. She sank about a mile and a quarter south-south-east from 
the Daunt light-vessel. 

59 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Sydney R. Waghorn 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN You were about 90 miles from land 
when you first saw this ship? Yes. 

You were 138 miles from Queenstown? Yes. 

I suggest you had the mizzen bearing about north, distance about 80 
miles? I do not know anything about navigation. 

We want to find the spot on the ocean which is 90 miles from land 
and 138 miles from Queenstown. We ought to be able to find that, ought 
we not? It was, at all events, out in the Atlantic Ocean? Yes. 

Did you tell my lord just now that you steered a course east to the 
Daunt Rock lightship? No. 

I thought you said so? 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE He eaid Queenstown was east. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Do you mean the bearing of Queenstown was due 
east? No. 

Queenstown was to the east, but obviously very far to the north of 
you ? No. 

What was the bearing of Queenstown? Queenstown lay, roughly, 
eastward. 

Have you any idea of the lie of the south coast of Ireland? Yes. 

Are you aware that you cannot steer due east to Queenstown, or, 
rather, to the Daunt Rock ; you have to go round the Daunt Rock before 
you can turn into Queenstown with a ship drawing any water? Yes. 

When you say Queenstown lay to the east of you, do you suggest that 
the bearing of Queenstown was east? I do not suggest anything about 
the bearing. I do not know anything about navigation at all. 

What hour of the day was it that you saw this vessel ? About 6 o'clock 
in the evening. 

At 6 o'clock in the evening on the day in question you could form a 
very fair opinion as to what your course was, could you not? No. 

Can a leading signalman of H.M.S. " Bluebell" not assist me in 
telling me even approximately what course was made for Queenstown after 
you took this ship the " Aud " in charge ? I cannot tell you the course 
that was made approximately. 

But when you say it was to the east you mean as regards the northern 
star it would lie to the east of it? Queenstown would lie to the eastward of 
where we first picked up the vessel. 

But you do not know what the bearing of Queenstown was? No. 

You do not know whether you went to the north or to north-east ? I 
do not know any course. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have nothing to do with the course? 
No, my lord. 

You have not to read the course? No. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN But you do know that you were 90 mile! from land? 
Roughly, 90 miles from land. 

And 138 miles, roughly, from the Daunt Rock lightship ? : Yes. 

JOHN DEMPSET, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am a diver 

employed by the Admiralty, and I live in County Cork. On 10th May 

last I received instructions to go from Queenstown to the wreck of a ship. 

The position of the ship was marked by a buoy. The ship was lying about 

60 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

John Dempsey 

a mile and a quarter south-south-east of the Daunt lightship. I was 
lowered down to the wreck of the ship, and when I got to the bottom of 
the sea I found the ship there. There were some flags painted on the 
ship; there was a Norwegian flag painted on the hull. I saw only one 
side of the vessel at that time. I afterwards saw the other side of the 
ship. I could not tell whether there was a Norwegian flag painted on 
that side, as she was lying right over on that side. I examined the ship, and 
found a hole in her on the starboard quarter. That hole was between 12 and 
14 feet in diameter. On the bottom of the sea, abreast of the hull, I saw 
a lot of rifles and ammunition strewn along the bottom. I brought up with 
me one of the complete rifles. (Shown exhibit No. 25.) That is the 
rifle I brought up ; the others were the .same as that. I saw a number of 
others, but the others were older patterns. I also brought up some broken 
rifle butts. Exhibit No. 26 isi one of them. I also found and brought 
up a bayonet case, exhibit No. 27. There were plenty down there. I 
also brought up a cartridge clip and a cartridge. I got the cartridge from 
the bed of the sea, lying by itself. The cartridges were scattered about 
the bottom loose on the bed of the sea.. When I found the cartridge it 
was in the clip. There were thousands! of other cartridges there. That 
would be about eleven o'clock on Wednesday forenoon. I went down later 
in the day, but the weather started to get very rough, and I had to give up 
my diving operations. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 

Colonel NICHOLAS T. BELAIEW, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I 
am a member of the Imperial Russian Guard. I am a representative of 
the Russian War Office, and I am on the Russian Government Supply Com- 
mittee at India House. I have examined the rifle, exhibit No. 25. That 
particular rifle is a Russian army service rifle, manufactured by the Im- 
perial Russian Tould in 1905. The number of it is 80908. Exhibit 
No. 27 is not a Russian scabbard. I have never seen such a scabbard 
in the Russian service. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am not quite certain, but I think I have 
seen something like this coming from South America. 

Examination continued The clip exhibited is a Russian clip. The 
cartridge case is like the Russian cartridge case, but there are some small 
differences; for instance, in this cartridge I do not see at the bottom of 
the cartridge any regular marking. At the bottom of the cartridge case 
we used to have some markings, the date of manufacture, and the name 
of the plant or works. I do not see any marking here. Then there is 
also some slight difference in the shape of the cartridge, and also some 
difference in the size of the powder grains and the charge of the cartridge 
case. That being so I do not think that the cartridge was made at the 
Russian Government works. I am quite familiar with the cartridges 
which are made at the Russian Government works, and so I can state 
that this cartridge has not been manufactured at the Russian Government 
works. It is difficult to state definitely whether the cartridge would fit 
the rifle which is exhibited, because that rifle is in a very bad state, but, 
as far as I can judge from the dimensions of the cartridge case and of the 
rifle, I think that this cartridge can fit. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have no question. 

61 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Lieut.-Col. P. J. Gordon 

Lieutenant-Colonel PHILIP JAMBS GORDON, examined by Mr. BODKIN 
I am a lieutenant-colonel attached to the Directorate of Military Intelligence 
at the War Office, Whitehall. I ain familiar with the military maps 
which are in use in the British Army. I have seen maps, exhibits 23 and 
35. They are portions of the map of Ireland. Putting the portions 
together in their proper order I think one would get a complete map of 
Ireland, but I have not actually put them together ; they are cut into pieces 
of different sizes. I should say that there is enough material to construct 
from them two complete maps of Ireland. I have examined the maps 
carefully. These maps are a reproduction by some process, probably 
heliotypography, of a, photographic production of a quarter-inch Ordnance 
Survey map of Ireland. I do not know of any map prepared or published 
in this country which resembles it in general appearance. It very closely 
resembles the map of middle Europe, prepared by the German Govern- 
ment, in general appearance. It is on the same scale, ^o^VuiF' an( ^ the 
meridians are numbered as from Ferro instead of from Greenwich. That 
is also done in the German map of middle Europe on a ^o^Vcru" sca l e > an d is 
never done in English maps. There are some signs for indicating roads 
which differ from the Ordnance methods. In the coloured portions of the 
maps the main roads are the same as on the Ordnance Survey maps, but 
there are additional roads with a special conventional sign which do not 
appear on the Ordnance Survey maps. It has been added. I am 
acquainted with maps- which use that conventional sign; it is a fairly 
common conventional sign for a road which is not of the best class, but 
better than an ordinary cart track. It is not used on Ordnance Survey 
maps. I notice certain colouring on that map. The green patches on 
the map, indicating woods, are not exactly the same as on the Ordnance 
Survey map ; they appear to have been put in from some special informa- 
tion. On several of the sheets, on which garrison towns appear, there are 
certain conventional signs which do not appear on our maps. I do not 
know exactly what they are, but they apparently refer to the defences of 
these garrisons. There are some patches; of colour used in connection with 
such towns. They are the conventional signs to which I refer, and they 
only appear at the garrisons. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There are patches of colour which indicate 
the land near towns. Every symbol on a map is what we call a conventional 
sign or symbol. The green patches are only shown on towns where there 
are garrisons. The other towns have no special conventional sign. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN Do I understand you to say that 
these green patches are anything special? They do not represent towns, 
do they ? They do not represent towns ; they represent certain areas about 
towns. 

All these green patches? Not all the green ones, the ones in vivid 
green, emerald green; and those in duller green represent woods. 

What? The patches of bright emerald green are the ones near 
defended towns, garrisons ; the small, dull, olive green patches represent 
woods. 

Look at Sligo. (Map handed to witness.) You will not tell me that 
ollooney is a, garrison town. Could you get a more brilliant green than 
62 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Lieut.-Col. P. J. Gordon 

decorates Collooney? The only patches on this map in green indicate 
woods. 

What I wish to point out to you is that Collooney has got the bright 
green you have just been speaking of. That you say represents a wood 
around Collooney? It is not exactly the same. 

Is Limerick a garrison town? No, not a defended port. It is not 
what we understand by a garrison town. 

Limerick is not a garrison town in what sense? It is a town with a 
garrison, is it not? It is a garrison town, but by garrison we understand a 
defended port. 

Is not the term "garrison town" usually applied to a town that is 
well equipped with barracks, and at which large bodies of soldiers are 
stationed ? Yes, a town in which there are barracks and bodies of soldiers. 

Do you know the town of Limerick ? I have never been there. I have 
never been in Ireland. 

Will you take that bit of the map which represents Lough Swilly? 
There are not five garrison towns on Lough Swilly, are there? Certainly 
not. 

Are there five of your green patches marked all along Lough Swilly? 
Those green patches' do not represent garrison towns. As I say, it is only 
conjecture on my part. 

If they represent garrison towns, does not that represent that Lough 
Swilly has at least five of them dotted all along it? They do not represent 
garrison towns. 

Then may I take it that it is) pure speculation on your part as to what 
these green circles do represent? It is. I have said that already. 

Do you see by that map that on Lough Swilly where there are no 
towns at all, in a. lonely country, there are five circles ? Seven altogether. 

There are seven circles dotted all along Lough Swilly where there are 
no towns of any kind, sort, or description? I am merely suggesting that 
they represent certain defended areas in the neighbourhood of garrisons. 

Will you tell me, looking at these seven patches on Lough Swilly 
you see where Lough Swilly runs? Yes. 

If you are not giving away any secret, will you tell me what is the 
nearest garrison town of any kind to Lough Swilly? Would it not be 
'Derry ? I would not be referring to garrison towns at all, only to garrisons. 

Do you suggest to my lords that there are seven stations on Lough 
Swilly with garrisons in them? This map has not been prepared in this 
country. 

Is not your answer, that you do not know what those seven patches 
on Lough Swilly represent? I have already said several times it is con- 
jecture. 

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL To make it quite clear, what 
do you mean by the word ' ' garrison " ? Probably " defended port " would 
be a better word to use. 

Have you looked at the places where these bright green patches are 
on the maps? Yes. 

Are there at or near those places garrisons in the sense in which you 
use the word ? That does not come into my department. 

63 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Maurice Moriarty 

MAURICE MORIARTY, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I live at 
Tralee, and I drive a motor car for Mr. Nolan. I remember last Good 
Friday. I drove Mr. Nolan's motor on that day. I started about 
eleven o'clock, and I got one passenger at Rock Street and two at 
Balloonough. Rock Street is a street in Tralee, and I picked up one 
passenger there. I took up the two others in Tralee. Ballyheige isi ten 
miles from Tralee. That road takes us through Ardfert. I drove 
through Ardfert. I gave some evidence at Bow Street Police Court in 
London. I saw at Bow Street Police Court one of the persons who had 
been in my car on that day. He gave his name to the police as Mulcahy, 
but his right name is Bailey.* He was in the dock when I saw him at 
Bow Street. I drove these persons to Ballyheige. After we drive 
through Ardfert the road takes one near to the sea, to a place called 
Banner Strand. Banner Strand is near Curraghane. I got about 300 
yards from the sea when the tyre burst. A police sergeant came up to 
see the oar then. After that I drove those three persons on to Ballyheige, 
and then to Causeway, about six miles from Ballyheige. I then took them 
through Abbeydorney back to Tralee. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 

GEORGE CARTER, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am a constable in the 
Royal Irish Constabulary. On Saturday, 22nd April, I was in the 
neighbourhood of Curraghane, near Abbeydorney. That is not very far 
from Ardfert three or four miles. I saw there a man, whom I afterwards 
took into custody. I afterwards saw that same man at Bow Street Police 
Court in London. He was then in the dock standing beside the prisoner, 
Sir Roger Casement. His name was Bailey. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No> question. 

DANIEL O'DONNELL, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am a 
detective-inspector at New Scotland Yard. On 28th April I went over to 
Dublin, and on 6th May I went to the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot at 
Phoenix Park. A man, whose name was afterwards given as Bailey, was 
handed over to my custody, and I brought that man over to London. 
While he was in Dublin that man was seen by some of the soldiers 
who. ha.ve given evidence in this case. He is the same person. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 

EDWARD PARKER, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I am an 
inspector of the Metropolitan Police on duty at New Scotland Yard. On 
the morning of 15th May I went with other officers to the Tower of London, 
where I saw the accused, Sir Roger Casement. I spoke to him, and said, 
" I am a police officer, and have a warrant for the arrest of Sir Roger 
"Casement; are you Sir Roger Casement?" He replied "Yes." I 
then read through a copy of a birth certificate I had in my hand, and 
asked him if he was born on 1st September, 1864, in the district of 
Kingstown, County Dublin, and he replied, "Yes." I said, "Was your 
" father Roger Casement and your mother Annie Casement? Was your 
"father a captain in the Antrim Militia?" and he replied, "Yes." I 

* See Appendix for the very interesting statement made by Bailey, taken by 
Inspector Britten at Abbeydorney on 23rd April, 1916. 
64 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Edward Parker 

then read the warrant to him, and he made no reply. Exhibit 1 is the 
warrant that I read to him. I took Casement to Bow Street Police Station, 
where he was subsequently charged. After he was charged he said, 
" Am I allowed to say anything now? " He was cautioned that if he did 
it would be taken down and used in evidence, and he then said, pointing 
to Bailey, who was charged with him, ' ' Well, that man is innocent. I 
" think the indictment is wrongly drawn up against him. If it is within 
" my power to provide defence for the man I wish him to be in every 
' ' way as well defended as myself, and if he has no means to obtain hisi 
" defence, I am prepared to obtain them for him." I produce the London 
Gazette of 5th August, 1914, exhibit 3. That is the Gazette containing 
the official announcement of the declaration of war with Germany. 
Mr. SULLIVAN No question. 

WILLIAM EGAN, recalled, further examined by Mr. BODKIN I spoke 
of having been at school with a man named Bailey. That man Bailey was 
in the camp at Limburg asi a British prisoner of war. I saw that same 
man in Dublin on 6th May under a military escort. I saw that same 
man at Bow Street Police Court standing in the dock beside the prisoner, 
Sir Roger Casement. 

Further cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN In the camp at Limburg 
were there French, Russian, and Irish all in the same camp? No. 

Did not they mix by day? They did in working parties, when they 
were going to work. 

What I want to know is, when you went to the camp at first, were 
the French cooking for the Irish prisoners? Yes. 

Do you remember that the cooking for the camp was done in the 
French camp? No, it was done in our camp. 

You say they were not moving about the camp freely. Could not 
you visit the French camp? No, unless we had a pass. 

Were passes common? No, it was only a privilege. 

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL I now ask your lordships to rule with regard 
to the admissibility of that document, exhibit No. 4, the address to the 
Irish soldiers which was circulated throughout the camp by German soldiers 
or officers. I put it in this way. This document being so circulated, it 
is plain that the Germans, our enemies, were using means to persuade 
Irish prisoners of war to join the Irish Brigade, the Irish Brigade being 
formed by the German Government, and provided by that Government 
with arms and ammunition, and so on. At the same time it is proved 
that the prisoner does the same thing, and eo he was in that enterprise 
adhering to and aiding and supporting the German authorities. That is, 
of course, one of the points which we have to prove. I submit to that end 
this document is admissible in evidence as showing what the Germans were 
doing and what Casement was helping them to do. 

The LORD CarEF JUSTICE' What do you say, Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit that the argument addressed to your lord- 

!, and the observations of the Solicitor-General, show that he is 
not relying upon this document having been brought to the knowledge 
or attention of Sir Roger Casement in the course of his visits to Limburg. 
Therefore it is a document that is not brought into contact with the 
prisoner or under his observation ; and it is not sought to be admitted on 
F 65 



Sir Roger Casement. 



that ground. The ground upon which it is sought to be admitted is that 
you find other people doing something similar to what he was doing. On 
the charge here, which is not a conspiracy in any shape or form, I respect- 
fully submit that whatever other people may have been doing, or what- 
ever view they may have been taking a to what benefit or not they 
might derive from what he was doing, unless it is alleged and proved that 
it was a conspiracy between two people to do an act, which has not been 
alleged, and I submit is not proved, the concurrent similar acts of two 
different people are not in themselves evidence of 'conspiracy to do' the same 
act. In the course of life many people seek to attain the same end 
possibly for very different reasons. The fact that you find people seeking 
to* attain the same end is no evidence, I submit the mere concurrence of 
events that they are seeking in confederacy, one with the other, to do 
the same thing, which is the essential component of the admissibility of a 
document on the ground that it is uttered by the agent. 

[Their lordships conferred.] 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We are of opinion that this document is 
admissible. It is clear upon the evidence as it stands, and we have to 
deal with the case at present upon the evidence as it stands, that the 
German officers and authorities were attempting to seduce the British 
soldiers who were prisoners of war in this camp from their allegiance. This 
leaflet was circulated and distributed amongst these prisoners that is, the 
British prisoners of war who were all said to be Irish in this camp. 
The prisoner Casement had been to the camp and had made a speech or 
speeches, and was; attempting to get men to join the Irish Brigade, accord- 
ing to the evidence as given at the moment, and he is charged with 
adhering to the King's enemies by giving them aid and comfort. The 
means by which they, the German authorities, were seeking to assist 
themselves was by getting these Irish prisoners of war to join this Irish 
Brigade for the purpose stated, and the prisoner was doing the same thing 
according to the evidence as at present given. In these circumstances it 
seems to us quite clear that this document, having been distributed after 
he (Casement) had come upon the scene, and, according to the evidence, 
seeking to bring about the same operation and the same result, the evidence 
of this document, exhibit No. 4, must be admissible in evidence against 
him on this charge. Therefore we admit it. 

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL My lord, the document has not yet been 
read to the jury. Perhaps I had better now read it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. 

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL It is in these terms ' ' Irishmen ! Here is> 
"a chance for you to fight for Ireland! You have fought for England, 
" your country's hereditary enemy. You have fought for Belgium in 
" England's interest, though it was no more to you than the Fiji Islands. 
' ' Are you willing to fight for your own country ? With a view to securing 
" the national freedom of Ireland, with the moral and material assistance 
" of the German Government, an Irish Brigade is being formed. , The 
" object of the Irish Brigade shall be to fight solely the cause of Ireland, 
" and under no circumstances shall it be directed to any German end. 
" The Irish Brigade shall be formed and shall fight under the Irish flag 
66 




Michael Francis Doyle, 

of the American Bar, 
who assisted the defence in Court throughout the trial. 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

' alone; the men hall wear a special, distinctly Irish uniform, and have 
' Irish officers. The Irish Brigade shall be clothed, fed, and efficiently 
' equipped with arms and ammunition by the German Government. It 
' will be stationed near Berlin, and be treated as guests of the German 
' Government. At the end of the war the German Government under- 
' takes to- send each member of the brigade who may so desire it to> the 
' United States of America, with necessary means to land. The Irishmen 
' in America are collecting money for the brigade. Those men who do not 
1 join the Irish Brigade will be removed from Limberg and distributed 
' among other camps. If interested, see your company commanders. 
' ' Join the Irish Brigade and win Ireland's independence ! Remember 
" Bachelor's Walk! God Save Ireland! " 

The ATTORNEY-GEOSTERAL That, my lords, is the case for the prosecu- 
tion. There is no statement. 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

Mr. SULLIVAN My lords, I intimated at another stage of the case 
that I had considerations to address to the Court on the question of 
whether the indictment to which the prisoner has since pleaded disclosed 
an offence known to the law and triable before your lordships. I fear 
I shall have to trespass on the time of the Court for some little period. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Whatever time you may require is at your 
disposal. It is essential that you should have all the time you wish. 
Please do not hurry. 

Mr. SULLIVAN What I was going to say was a matter for the guid- 
ance of the Court, that I should probably occupy, in the debate of this 
matter at any rate, such a period of the afternoon that I would ask for 
personal indulgence that I might not be called upon to speak further 
to the evidence, if your lordships would .kindly allow that. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Certainly. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The indictment which your lordships have before 
you under the new statute sets out the charge as being " High Treason 
te by adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere than in the King's realm, 
" to wit, in the Empire of Germany, contrary to the Treason Act, 1351." 
Now, my lords, we are all aware that that statement, in the description 
of the offence as far as I have gone, is certainly not taken from the words 
of the statute, 25 Edward III. On the contrary, the words " elsewhere 
" than in the King's realm," so far from following the charge of adhering 
to the King's enemies in the statute, are followed by directly contrary 
words, " adhering to the King's enemies within his realm," and, as 
we all know, are followed by the further words, " giving them aid or 
" comfort within the realm or elsewhere," as it has been translated. 

My lords, the matter is not agitated for the first time, but there 
is no case as far as I know, and my colleagues, Mr. Artemus Jones, and 
Mr. Morgan especially, have assisted me in my search, and have gone 
through a great number of cases there is, as far as I know, no case 
in which it has ever been submitted to any Court, argued, and decided, 
that a statute which in terms commences by a declaration that the offence 

67 



Sir Roger Casement. 



shall be committed within the realm has ever after argument been 
adjudged to extend to an offence outside the realm; no reported case, 
at all events. One case was cited in a previous argument thirteen years 
ago on behalf of the Crown as being an authority that way which I shall 
have to deal with at some length, and I think I shall prove to almost 
mathematical demonstration that, so far from establishing the proposi- 
tion for which it was cited, it, in fact, was a case of adhering to the 
King's enemies in the realm in the plainest of plain terms, not charged 
in the indictment, but the place lay within the realm of England; and 
from the nature of the trial and tribunal, I hope to point out to your 
lordships that that view must inevitably be taken. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Are you referring to Vaughan's case? 
Mr. SULLIVAN The King v. Vaughan. I hope to establish that in 
The King v. Vaughan. The offence charged was actually committed 
within the realm, and was tried as such. But, my lords, before I come 
to that, may I be permitted to develop on an interior line? Treason 
was a generic term applied to a great number of offences, all savouring 
of breach of allegiance to His Majesty the King. The subject of all 
allegiance itself falls under two totally distinct heads, allegiance of the 
person and allegiance of the occupier of a locality, because, as your 
lordships are well aware, the occupier, even though he be an alien enemy, 
a resident within the realm, owes a local allegiance, if I may use the 
term in that context, to His Majesty the King so long as he resides within 
the King's peace and has his protection. Such a local allegiance is it 
that he, although by birth and personality an alien enemy, may be 
indicted and convicted of treason to our Lord the King. That is per- 
fectly clear. May I refer your lordships to the first volume of Hale, 
page 92 : " If an alien army " it is printed " army," it is obvious it 
must be " amy," an alien friend " if an alien amy comes into England, 
" and here compass the death of the King, Queen, or Prince, this is a 
" man compassing within thisi law; for, though he be the natural subject 
" of another Prince, yet during his residence here he owes a local allegiance 
" to the King of England, and though the indictment shall not style him," 
a natural born subject. It then proceeds to deal with the form in 
which he may be indicted: " If an alien amy subject of another Prince 
" comes into this Kingdom and here settles his abode, and afterwards war 
" is proclaimed between the two Kings, and yet the alien continues here 
"and takes the benefit of the King's laws and protection, and yet com- 
" passes the death of the King, this isi a man compassing within this law; 
" for, though he be the natural subject of another Prince, he shall be 
" dealt with as an English subject in this case, unless he first openly 
" remove himself from the King's protection by passing to the other Prince, 
" or by a public renunciation of the King of England's protection." We 
are not dealing with that. Then further he deals with a merchant coming 
into the realm and a foreigner residing and trading here under the King's 
protection. I do not think on behalf of the Crown it will be for one 
moment contended that a resident within the kingdom, although the 
subject of a foreign prince, is not bound by the local allegiance of which 
I speak. The importance of that in considering the point to which I am 
approaching is that a man may in truth be the subject of two allegiances 






Motion to Quash Indictment. 

so long as he is on land, for he is subject to the allegiance of his natural 
prince and he is subject to the allegiance of the prince in whose dominion 
he may be. When we come to consider what the statute of Edward III. 
dealt with, it will be of importance, I submit, to bear in mind that one 
of the reasons why Parliament, or the declaration submitted to Parlia- 
ment, contains the words " within the realm " was consciousness of the 
fact that once you went without the realm, in the sense of going into 
the realm of another prince, you were there dealing with a man who 
might be in a difficult position, and who was not in the free untrammelled 
allegiance to a single prince that His Majesty's subjects within His 
Majesty's own realm might be. That will at once distinguish the position 
of one who, going outside the realm, namely, outside the four seas, 
nevertheless does not pass into the realm or under the allegiance of 
another Sovereign. This case is that of a man upon the high seas, the 
natural born subject on the high seas, outside the four seas, which 
I will show to your lordships are unquestionably, for the purposes of the 
construction of the statute, within the realm of England, with reference 
to the cases the man who passes on to the high seas, it is true that 
he may be without the realm but I think I will show your lordships 
authority that he is still within the King's dominions, and under the 
sole duty of allegiance to his one Sovereign, and under allegiance to nobody 
else, while he is upon the high seas. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Speaking generally, with reference to the 
particular words of the statute for the moment, you are leaving the 
words of the statute and dealing with the common law. 

Mr. SULLIVAN For the purposes of approaching the wording of the 
statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is not there authority for this proposition 
that a man without the realm may be excused for what would otherwise 
be an act of treason if he commits it under terror of death? I thought 
the law had always drawn that distinction. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think the authority goes even further, because the 
man who within the realm joins in the levying of war upon His Majesty 
is excused under the doctrine your lordship mentions. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If it is right to say there is authority 
for the doctrine that I put forward to you, it would seem to indicate 
there is the offence of treason apart altogether from whether it is within 
this statute if it is a breach of duty or of allegiance committed without 
the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN For the purpose of argument I may be permitted 
to concede that, but it would not be treason within the statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is another point. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Nor would it have been charged if sought to allege 
it against a person in old times under adhering, but of compassing the 
death of the King within the earlier decisions, that everything must 
be reduced down to that basis of inference, that once you do any act 
of treason it could be said to be evidence of the primary act of treason 
which was the compassing and imagining of the King's death. I deal 
with this as an approach to the words of the statute and with reference 

69 



Sir Roger Casement. 



to the cases cited purporting to be binding with reference to this matter. 
Under the statute your lordships will note as an argument that the 
words of the statute " within the realm " meant within the realm; 
there is no procedure. Procedure was the very essence of common law 
in those days. You could not find a venue for the offence committed 
outside the realm till a period that I will come to when venue was pro- 
vided by statute. Your lordships will find in the 2 Dyer, in the Third 
Philip and Mary, case 13 Ib, the opinion of the judges there delivered 
was that there was no venue for various treasons until, my lords, it 
was provided by the statute of Henry VIII. Accordingly it is, I submit, 
abhorrent to the ideas of jurisprudence that a statute should create an 
offence that could be only, so to speak, in the air, that a man could be 
a criminal by statute, and yet there would be no means, on the con- 
struction of the statute which made him criminal, of determining what 
should be done with him for the crime that he had committed; and if as 
late as the reign of Philip and Mary the opinion of the judges was to 
this effect, and it was only cured in the reign of Henry VIII., your 
lordships will have all that long period of time between the "passing of 
the Act of Edward and the passing of the statute of Henry VIII. , in 
which on the construction sought by the Crown there were crimes of 
which there was no Court to take cognisance. The mistake with regard 
to this matter, for I submit there has been a mistake, originates with 
the writings of Coke. So far as the research of my colleagues can 
go, they can find no earlier authorities; but when you come to deal 
with Lord Coke's writings your lordships will find that this part of the 
Third Institute dealing with the subject, in which the statement is made 
in plain terms, does not purport to be a portion of his speculative 
writings, on which Stephen comments so bitterly, but purports to be 
an exposition of the result of the investigation of the authorities which 
he cites as supporting him in his contentions. At the bottom of page 10 of 
the Third Institute your lordships will find in the marginal note at the bottom 
Adherent." This is here explained, viz., " in giving aid and comfort 
to the King's enemies within the realm or without, delivery or surrender 
of the King's castles or forts by the King's captain thereof to the King's 
enemies within the realm or without for reward, &c., is adhering to the 
King's enemy, and consequently treason declared by this Act." His 
references are interesting because they have nothing whatever to say to 
the proposition which he so boldly states, and, as far as we can discover, 
states for the first time, that adhering within the realm means adhering 
within the realm or without. The first reference is to the Book of 
Assize and Pleas of the Crown. His other references are to the Rolls 
of Parliament. He gives four references, the 7 Richard II., items 15, 
17, and 24, and the 7 Henry IV., item 47. Now, none of those cases 
have anything to do with the statute that I ask your lordships to construe. 
If your lordships take the 7 Richard II., item 15, one of the matters 
cited for the justification of this proposition, it is a case of the surrender 
of the King's castle; that is an act of adhering abroad. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is given afterwards by Hale, Foster, 
.and a number of authorities. 

Mr. SULLIVAN And Hallam's comments on Hole's timid acceptance 
70 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

of doctrines he would not himself have enunciated is borne out if we find 
the foundation of them repeated and obviously copied; the foundation 
does not, in fact, exist. When I come, as I will be able to come, of 
course, to deal with the statement in Hale, I will again have to point 
out that Hale does not purport to be dealing in speculation as to what 
construction the statute ought to have ; he only repeats all these authori- 
ties as being passages from Lord Coke as being the foundation of the 
doctrine which he again quotes from Lord Coke. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What I am not quite clear about in 
following your argument is this. Do you say it is not a crime at common 
law for a British subject to adhere to the King's enemies without the 
realm ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN For the moment the argument is not addressed to the 
common law at all. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I tell you why I am putting that to you; 
we cannot lose sight of it, I think. You are quite justified in saying, 
if you think it right, that it does not affect your argument; but if we 
have to construe the statute of 1351 we have also to bear in mind what 
has been said by other great judicial authorities as to the statute, par- 
ticularly Lord Blackburn, who said it was declaratory of the common law. 
You are thrown back to the common law of the realm in order to under- 
stand the statute. I quite agree we still have to construe the language 
of the statute and are bound by it, but it is important to see what the 
common law of the realm is. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit by the common law of the realm at the 
time of that statute it was perfectly clear that the common law could 
not deal with treasons abroad, for the reason that they would not be 
triable at common law. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Because you say there was no venue? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Because I say there was no venue. That is a very 
strong argument. Again Lord Coke I will have to cite. He purports to 
give authority to show that venue could be found; and that again, on 
being searched, does not bear out the proposition for which it is cited. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Are you going to come to the 2 Dyer, to 
which you made reference? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. On the question both as to the common law 
and the statute the opinion of the judges is that the cases of treason 
without the realm were not triable before, at the earliest, the 28 
Henry VIII. The first item upon which Lord Coke passes his opinion 
is the 7 Richard II., item 15 on the rolls. That is not a case of 
treason; it is an impeachment of the Bishop of Norwich for peculation 
and breach of contract with the Crown. An investigation of the case 
shows that it was in his capacity as Army contractor that the Bishop 
was impeached, having apparently contracted with the Crown to furnish 
forthwith an army of certain dimensions and maintainment, and having 
failed to do so, and having also dealt with supplies in a manner which 
apparently did not commend itself to the Court. It was not dealing 
with treason at all. So far as can be discovered it was not a case 
of treason; at all events it is charged in that very general way, and on 
investigation it is very hard to say, even if you had got behind the statute 

71 



Sir Roger Casement. 



of the old days of accroachment of the Royal prerogative, how that 
breach of contract to supply the King with the men he undertook to enlist 
could possibly have been treated as treason. At all events, it was not 
treated as treason. 

Item 17 is a case of two persons named Cressyngham and Spykes- 
worth, custodians of the castle in Flanders, who were put in arrest, and 
put to their answer in Parliament for surrendering the castle. There is 
no mention of treason in the Act. One of the persons was released, and 
the other, his answers not being considered satisfactory, was committed 
during the pleasure of His Majesty; it does not purport to be treason, nor 
is any word savouring of treason alleged in the Act. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVOBT What else does it purport to be? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was probably a case just as the court-martial on 
a naval officer for losing his ship, and investigation of the loss; it was 
an investigation of the circumstances under which the castle was cap- 
tured. When I come to these cases in Hale I find that I am, in fact, 
giving Hale's own answer to this particular case, because the case of the 
castle is dealt with in Hale, and when I come to deal with Hale your 
lordship will see that he is not satisfied that this is treason, saving that, 
of course, it might be treason if he traitorously surrendered the castle, 
but the case itself does not show that any such charge was ever involved. 

Then item 24: is another case of surrendering a castle, and taking 
money as part of the terms. It is not charged, my lord, either under 
the statute or as treason, nor is the word " adhering " mentioned. 
The defendant is reproved by the Chancellor for treating with the enemy 
without the King's authority. One of the knights who were defendants 
(they were all put to their answer in Parliament) is accused of accroach- 
ing the Royal power by issuing letters of safe conduct without the Royal 
authority, and apparently taking money for doing it. That was the 
charge in that case. There is no conviction for treason; they were com- 
mitted to prison till they paid a ransom, and the charge, which was very 
loose, was not under the statute or in respect of treason at all; it seems 
to have been some charge of corruption of some sort; but it is impossible 
to spell into that any conviction under the statute of Edward. Further- 
more, these cases cited are all cases of military commanders in the service 
of the King. The military commander in the service of the King was 
always within the jurisdiction of the King's Marshal, whoever he was. 
The military servants of the Crown have, so far as I know, always been 
on a different footing to the ordinary civil subject of His Majesty with 
regard to their obligations, and with regard to the means by which they 
may have been dealt with for military offences coming within the cog- 
nisance of the marshal or constable. At all events, none of these cases 
cited for the bold statement in Lord Coke's text have the slightest bear- 
ing to justify Lord Coke in making the statement. It is interesting to 
note with regard to these military offences that in the reign of Queen 
Anne a statute was passed, the Mutiny Act of the 7 Anne, which I will 
refer to afterwards, and in the Mutiny Act of the 7 Anne there is an 
express section dealing with what would be adhering to the King's 
enemies in respect of persons in military service of Her Majesty abroad. 
It is then declared to be high treason, and apparently created high 
72 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

treason, and it certainly would be a strange comment on the statutory 
authority, if in truth it has been high treason for hundreds of years, 
that, nevertheless, a section should be introduced into a Mutiny Act as 
late as the 7 Anne declaring it to be high treason if it clearly had been 
within the statute that we are dealing with, the 25 Edward III. 
Military persons have always been outside the ordinary jurisdiction, and 
for that reason, as I think Sir Matthew Hale agrees, these cases are of 
little use, and certainly are little justification for reading the statute in 
the way in which it was sought to be read. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The reference to Hale in dealing with this 
is pages 168 and 169. 

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL I was asking my friend for the reference 
with regard to the criticism of Coke. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is the criticism of cases. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I thought Hale was more emphatic about 
it; he took the same view. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I must have misconveyed myself if I suggested to 
your lordship that I was going to quote any passages of Hale criticising 
Lord Coke; the criticism of Lord Coke was my reference to Stephen's 
criticism of Coke. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I understood you to say that Hale had dealt 
with the case, and had said that if it had been sought to be done 
traitorously it might be high treason. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I will read it; it is at the bottom of page 168, the 
last page. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Will not you read page 167 first, at the 
beginning of the second paragraph? 

Mr. SULLIVAN If you please. "If an Englishman during war 
" between the King of England and France be taken by the French and 
" there swear fealty to the King of France, if it be done voluntarily, it is 
" adhering to the King's enemy; but if it be done for fear of his life, and 
" then he returns, as soon as he might, to the allegiance of the Crown of 
" England, this is not adherence to the King's enemies within this Act." 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE This is the Act of Edward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, the Act we are dealing with. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That was the kind of authority that I had 
mind when putting the proposition of the common law to you. If 
lat is right it establishes it at common law against you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If it is right it is put not as a statement of the 
)mmon law but as a statement on the statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE^ That may be only arguing in a circle; 
lere you, at any rate, have authority for saying the statute of 
Iward in 1351 was merely to declare the common law, because there 

some doubt about it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is a circle. 

fhe LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I have come across somewhere in the read- 
ig for the purpose of this case, I think it is Sir John Campbell, when 
i-ttorney-General, said the statute was passed to get rid of that miserable 
J of things, and that is why the statute of Edward III. was passed. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Though in a circle, I submit, so far from weakening 

73 



Sir Roger Casement. 



my argument, that strengthens my argument. If you find cited, whether 
you call it under the statute or by common law, authorities for a pro- 
position applying to the statute, that is strong evidence that if the 
authorities are, in fact, mistaken as to the basis of decision, and there 
never has been a decision upon it, that then your lordships will have 
to construe not the common law but the statute in the terms of the 
declaration as representing whatever the true meaning of those terms 
may be, the common law anterior to it. Now, my lords, I was passing 
to the bottom of page 168, unless the Attorney-General wishes me to 
read any more. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No, I wanted that paragraph which sug- 
gested what my lord said. I think at the top of page 168 you have 
Weston's case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. " This was the case of William Weston for 
" delivering up the estate of Oughtrewicke, and John de Gomenys for 
" delivering up the Castle of Ardes, in France, both of which were im- 
" peached by the Commons, and had judgment of the Lords in Parlia- 
"ment." 

Mr. JUSTICES HORRIDGEI Are these the cases you gave under the items 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN No; this is a new case cited by him, the 1 
Richard II., No. 40. William de Weston was to be drawn and hanged, 
but execution was respited; and execution was respited in the second 
case. Then: " And note, though the charge were treason, and possibly 
" the proofs might probably amount to it, and Walsingham, sub anno 1 
" Richard II., tells us it was done by treason; yet the reason expressed in 
" the judgment against Weston is only " then he quotes the judgment, 
and he says, passing on to the passage I wished to approach, " The 
(l truth is, if it were delivered up by bribery or treachery, it might be 
" treason, but if delivered up upon cowardice or imprudence without 
" treachery " purely upon the suggestion I made, it was an inquiry 
into the method of the delivery of the castle " though it were an offence 
" against the laws of war, and the party subject to a sentence of death by 
" martial law, as it once happened in a case of the like nature in the late 
" times of trouble, yet it is not treason by the common law, unless it was 
" done by treachery; but though this sentence was given in terrorem, 
' ' yet it was not executed : it iseems to be a kind of military sentence, though 
" given in Parliament." That is the passage I wished to refer to. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE; That is a very strong line, that it would not 
be " unless it was done by treachery." That is not a mere " might "; 
it is denning the law. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " The truth is, if it were delivered up by bribery or 
" treachery, it might be treason." 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE; The last sentence you read is what I was 
referring to: " Unless it was done by treachery." 

Mr. SULLIVAN " Yet it is not treason by the common law, unless 
" it was done by treachery; but though this sentence was given in 
' ' terrorem, yet it was not executed ; it seems to be a kind of military 
" sentence, though given in Parliament." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That means if it was surrendered by reason 
of cowardice or imprudence, then it would not be treason at common 
74 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

law, or might not be, whichever phrase you choose to adopt; but if, on 
the other hand, it was surrendered by reason of bribery or treachery, 
that would be treason. Is not that the effect of it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit not. I submit, when you read the whole 
passage, he really is not dealing with the question of adhering outside the 
realm at all, and is simply dealing with these two cases, and establishing 
nothing with regard to the statute or the common law, and he simply 
passes from them dismissing them as military sentences, throwing no 
light one way or the other. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is an observation which is justified, I 
think, in my opinion, so far as it relates to surrendering the castle of 
the King by reason of cowardice or imprudence; but it is not justified 
if it relates to the .surrender of the castle by reason of bribery or treachery ; 
he seems to draw that very distinction. He says cowardice and imprudence 
is not treachery, but military law. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The opening statement, where one expects to find the 
most definite opinion, if definite opinion exist, is " The truth is, if it 
" was delivered up by bribery or treachery." That is the extreme case; 
it might be treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Supposing treason was not known outside 
the realm, it seems a funny sort of dissertation ; he is dealing with giving 
up a castle outside the realm, and it seems, to my mind, a very large 
order to have this alternative put if the law was that there was no such 
thing as treason outside the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN What I am dealing with is, you will always have to 
come back to Lord Coke's authority to find the substance of the doctrine 
of treason outside the realm. Apparently Lord Coke thought it required 
authority to support it, and, my lord, I cite page 168 of Hale to the effect 
that these cases of the delivery of castles by their military custodians 
are not cases on the statute, and therefore are not authorities. The cases 
at all events are not authorities on the matter that I am dealing with. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Had not you better read the next passage; 
that is one of the difficulties I feel in your way; the statute of Henry 
11 touching the trial of foreign treason, viz., adhering to the King's 
"enemies, as also for compassing the King's death without the kingdom, 
" at this day the statutes of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, hath sufficiently 
" provided for it." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is under the statute this jurisdiction 
arises. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have not come to the statute of Henry VIII., but 
on the passage I cite in my submission, until you have the statute of 
Henry VIII. the matter would be pure speculation only, because there 
could not be crimes for which the man could not be tried. If the authority 
in Dyer is correct, which apparently he suggests, the statute of Henry VIII. 
provides for the trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY Was not an English subject who committed 
murder abroad triable in this country if he came back? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think not, my lord, at common law; I think the old 
difficulty of venue existed; that is my impression reading it, though at 
the moment I cannot give the answer on the book. 

75 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. JUSTICE AVORT I think you will find authority for the proposition 
he can be tried, and if he can be tried the Court probably found some 
way out of the difficulty about venue. 

Mr. SULLIVAN At the moment I am under the impression that, until 
some statutory provision was made, the common law took no cognisance 
of what a man did on territory that did not belong to the common law. 
I will have to cite, when I come to deal with The King v. Vaughan, 
and other cases of that type, authorities that the common law had no 
cognisance even of crimes committed within the realm, where the portion 
of the realm within which they were committed was outside the common 
law jurisdiction; it was to remedy that that one of the statutes was 
passed; there are two statutes of Henry VIII., the 28 Henry VIII. is on 
and the 35 Henry VIII. is the other. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The 35 Henry VIII. we shall have to look 
at. Before you leave Hale there is a passage which seems to have a 
very direct bearing upon the point we are discussing at page 169; I do 
not think it has been read: " Touching the trial of high treason/' 

Mr. SULLIVAN Mr. Justice Horridge read that just now. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE But I want the last part of it: " Touching 
the trial of foreign treason, viz., adhering to the King's enemies, as 
also for compassing the King's death without the kingdom, at this day 
the statutes of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, hath sufficiently provided for 
it." This passage I want to call your attention to : " But at common 
law he might have been indicted in any county of England, and especially 
where the offender's lands lie, if he have any." The authority for that 
is the 5 Richard II. If that is right, it gives authority for the trial 
for foreign treason in any county, particularly in a county where 
offender's lands lie. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If, in truth, that was supported by the authority given, 
that would get over the difficulty I allege. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE And it would be inconsistent with what you 
tell us is the result of the case in the 2 Dyer. 

Mr. SULLIVAN An investigation of the case cited shows it to be 
as follows 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have considered it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. It was the case of a riot at Cambridge in 
which the burgesses rioted, and in the course of the riot apparently 
made some attack on the colleges, and some attempt to burn their 
charters. The case in question is that the burgesses were summoned to 
Parliament in respect of the riot occurring in their town, and their towns- 
men attempting to burn the records of the University; the burgesses 
were summoned to Parliament to show cause why their charter should not 
be forfeited. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Are you suggesting that is the authority 
for this proposition in Hale? What has that to do with foreign treason? 

Mr. SULLIVAN My colleague, Professor Morgan, has investigated 
every one of these more ancient cases, and he returns me this extract of 
the case cited, and if there is some other case, I can only say it is not 
this one. 
76 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It seems to me miles away from the point; 
it is not like Sir Matthew Hale. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Is not this a justification for Stephen's Commentary 
on Coke, at page 57, that passages in the Third Institute are often entirely 
unwarranted by the authorities which he quotes for them? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a novel proposition to say that because 
Stephen commented severely on Coke, that therefore we are to take 
the same comment as made on Sir Matthew Hale. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That cannot be the case; there must be some 
mistake about that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I agree; it does seem to me a transference to an 
object that was not within the original ambit of the statute. I quite 
forgot it was Hale I had open before me. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have sent for that particular case. My 
learned friend will allow me to point out it may or may not be the 
ground of the comment made by the learned author, Hale, but the 
advocate who appeared for the Crown said, in Gallon's case, " If a 
" man be adherent to the King's enemies in France, his land is forfeitable, 
" and his treason shall be tried where his land is, as has been oftentimes 
"done in respect of the adherence to the King's enemies in Scotland." 
That was said in the course of the argument. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What do you mean by Gallon's case? 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is the case referred to. 
Mr. SULLIVAN It was the case of the burgesses of Cambridge. 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have sent for it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It does seem so strange, though it may 
be so, that in those days when there was so much happening abroad in 
which the Kings of England were interested, that it should not have 
been treason to commit the act in France, but treason if committed in 
England. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Is the reference right, the 5 Richard II., trial 54? 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is Peter Gallon's case. 
Mr. SULLIVAN How there came to be discussion on the law of treason 
in the case I referred to I do not know. The case was looked up on 
the Roll of Parliament. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I understand it is reported in Fitzherbert's 
Abridgment. I only happen to know of the case because I have the 
reference in the passage to the argument of the representative of the 
Crown. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I know there is a reference to it in Fitz- 
herbert's Abridgment. We will see what the case is. 

Mr. SULLIVAN We may perhaps have looked at the wrong case. 
Sir Matthew Hale is more likely to be right than we are. My friends 
got it from the Rolls of Parliament, and apparently the reference is at 
all events consistent with the Rolls of Parliament. There may be a mis- 
apprehension about it. Hale introduces some new cases. Stephen's 
Commentary on Hale at page 62 ia that he is too fond of repeating Coke 
literally and ignoring his mistakes. That is what Stephen says about 
Hale. Hale quotes three cases from the Close Roll, namely, 6 John, 
membrane 19; 7 Edward III., part 1, membrane 15 and membrane 9. 

77 



Sir Roger Casement. 

They are all prior to the statute, The first is apparently throwing little 
light on the subject, because it deals with the confiscation of the lands of 
the barons who renounced their allegiance to King John in Normandy. 
We are all familiar with the disputes that were going on in Normandy 
as to who was the King of Normandy; the position of a baron in those' 
days must have been a somewhat difficult one, not from the dual alliance 
but the dual claims of his alliance, and they fought out their battles over 
his body. The barons in Normandy who acknowledged fealty to the 
wrong lord had their lands forfeited in the reign of John. This is before 
the Act, and it does not throw much light on the subject we are dis- 
cussing here, and would, perhaps, involve considerable investigation on 
feudal law. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am very loath to interrupt or to inter- 
fere with your argument, because it is obviously based upon a very 
complete research, but the difficulty is we must at some time come to 
more modern times, and the law laid down there. You see these matters 
have been discussed, and although it may be true that Lord Coke went 
further than he was justified in going, still if you find that later authori- 
ties have adopted that view, and that there is a judicial authority for it, 
even though it does not actually decide the case, it is asking much of us 
to ask us to decide that Lord Coke was wrong. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If I submit there has been no case decided on it 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Not on the express point. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If, asi I submit, this is a case of first impression, so 
far as the decisions upon it go, by any Court of justice affecting either 
person or property 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is that quite right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I say if it is. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do not follow. You will tell me directly 
when you come to it how there could be a, conviction in Lynch's case if 
the present argument is right. Lynch was indicted for treason in South 
Africa. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am going to deal with Lynch's case, in which the 
case was allowed to go to the jury, but I preferred to deal with the 
authorities there cited. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do not want to take you to Lynch's case at 
once unless it is convenient. I doubt whether we serve any useful purpose 
by looking too much into these earlier authorities when we have to deal 
with modern times and the law that binds us now. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am sorry your lordship did not express any desire 
beforehand that it might be- most necessary to deal with The King v. 
Lynch. That is reported in 1903 King's Bench at page 444. In the Law 
Reports, report of The King v. Lynch, this point is not reported. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, at page 446. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There was a motion to quash the indictment. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL On this ground? 

Mr. SULLIVAN On this ground, but your lordship sees that there is 

simply a very short argument given, and the only decision of the Court is 

upon a matter of procedure ; that is why I originally called attention to it ; 

the only judgment of the Court is not upon the point we are considering, 

78 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

but solely on the question of procedure whether the indictment should 
be quashed. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do* not know whether you have had the 
opportunity of reading the long argument upon it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, I have, from the shorthand notes. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT The point was repeated on the conclusion of the 
case for the prosecution. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I shall have to trespass, again and borrow the shorthand 
notes of The King v. Lynch. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT You will find on the conclusion of the case for 
the prosecution the argument was really put before the Court ; it was quite 
shortly put at the earlier stage. 

Mr. SULLIVAN So I noticed. The argument comes at page 107 of 
the shorthand notes, and is continued on page 108. There is an authority 
cited Maclane's case and Smith O'Brien's case and the observation of 
Mr. Justice' Finucane is stated later on, namely, that the adherence is 
imputed to the person charged, not to the place of the offence. The 
important matter to> show what was in the mind of the Court is the manner 
in which Lord Alverstone dealt with The King v. Vaugha/n at page 109 
" It seems to me that The King v. Vaughcm is a. direct authority against 
" you ; it is in the 13 State Trials, and the passage is at page 525 and page 
t( 526. I have no doubt you have looked at this most carefully. There 
" are passages in Hale and others that are against this contention. They 
" may be the relics of a barbaric age, but you have to deal with them/ 5 

There is an observation further up on the same page by the Lord 
Chief Justice " I have no doubt you have considered it, but it seems to 
" me that The King v. Vaughan is a direct authority. The charge against 
" the prisoner is left to the jury upon the count only of adhering to the 
tl King's enemies, that being done upon the high seas, and the point is then 
" attempted to be taken that he was not a British subject at all." The 
Attorney-General calls attention to the fact that there is no count for 
compassing, as the counsel for the defendant had suggested, and then the 
Lord Chief Justice says, " It seems to me The King v. Vaughan is a 
" direct authority against you." Then he says, " I have no doubt you have 
" looked at it most carefully ; there are passages in Hale and others that are 
" against this contention. They may be the relics of a barbaric age, but 
*' you have to deal with them." 

Then there is a quotation from Hale. The argument of the Attorney- 
General commences at the bottom of page 111. And he says, " I men- 
tioned a statute which was passed in the eighteenth year of George II. 
" which related to the case of a, certain number of English subjects who had, 
" while this country was engaged in war with Spain, taken commissions from 
"the Spanish Government and been guilty of buccaneering and piracy in 
" the West Indies. The statute was passed to remove any doubt that these 
"persons might be tried for piracy although the act that they had com- 
" mitted was also one of high treason. I shall just read the words of the 
"statute." I will deal with the statute in one moment. He cites the 
dictum, because he admits it is no more, of Mr. Justice Willes, in advising 
the Lords in Mulcahy's case ; that is clearly a dictum, and no more. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think that is quite right; it was not 

79 



Sir Roger Casement. 

necessary for the decision, but that was the opinion of all the judges. It 
was the opinion of the judges delivered to the House of Lords in Mulcahy ? s 
case, and they construed the language of the statute of 1351 contrary to 
your present argument. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In the summary of the argument in the House of Lords 
it would appear he said at the bottom of page 317 " By the statute of 
" 25 Edward III., statute 5, chapter 2 (extended to Ireland by Poyning's 
" Act, see O'Brien v. The Queen), it was declared to be treason." Then he 
purports to quote the words of the statute " When a man doth compass or 
" imagine the death of our Lord the King," &o., " or if a, man do levy war 
11 against our Lord the King in his realm or by adhering to the King's 
" enemies in his realm or elsewhere and thereof he probably attainted of 
"open deed." He purports to quote the words of the statute because it 
is in inverted commas. It was a dictum pure and simple ; the case of The 
Queen v. Mulcdhy had nothing to say to treason without the realm at all; 
the point that went to the House of Lords did not involve that question. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think you are quite justified in saying 
that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The case is reported in 3 English and Irish appeal 
oases at common law, and the decision in the Court below, apart from 
this question of the jury, and the only matter of argument in the Court 
below, was whether a man could commit an act in Dublin when not in 
Dublin himself to commit it, it being proved it was done by a member of 
the Corporation of which he was proved to be one. 

Mr. JUSTICE HOBRIDGE I have not the copy of Lynch/s trial in the 
shorthand notes, but I have The Times Law Reports, and it seems that the 
point was not only taken, in the first instance, before plea, but was taken 
afterwards at the close of the case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN At that time the argument was developed. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Whether rightly or wrongly, the Lord Chief 
Justice must have decided the point by leaving the issue to the jury. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He did, on the authority of The King v. Vaughtm, 
which the Lord Chief Justice more than once repeats is conclusive and 
decisive on the subject; and if he was right in that, and if The King v. 
Vaughan that he purports to follow is conclusive on the subject, I could not 
hope to convince your lordships after this lapse of time, and your lordships, 
in this Court at all events, would follow the same precedent. Now let me 
take The King v. Vaughan, which is reported in the 13 State Trials. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT It is also reported in 2 Salkeld. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am reading at column 487 ; that will give your 
lordship the indictment for the trial of Captain Thomas Vaughan. It was 
an indictment tried before Sir Charles Hedges, judge of the High Court of 
Admiralty, the Lord Chief Justice Holt, the Lord Chief Justice Treby, the 
Lord Chief Baron Ward, Mr. Justice Turton, and others of His Majesty's 
Commissioners!. It was tried before the Lord High Admiral and the other 
persons that were mentioned in the statute that I will have to open to 
your lordships, as showing conclusively that it was tried in respect of acts 
done within the realm of England, though not within the jurisdiction of the 
common law. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Surely that was a trial under a special Com- 
mission. 
80 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was presided over by the judge of the High Court 
of Admiralty. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE And Lord Chief Justice Holt. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. I suggest that since the President of the Court 
was the Admiralty judge, that shows it was tried under a statute which I 
will pass to, and I will show that the judge of Admiralty and divers other 
weighty persons, that were construed to mean Her Majesty's judges, sat 
with him under the statute of 28 Henry VIII. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is no doubt whatever it was an 
indictment for high treason on the high seas. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was an indictment for high treason within the 
realm, as I will show your lordship; it was on the narrow seas. I will 
show that at that date there was no doubt or question that the place 
where the acts were committed was within the realm of England. The 
date of the trial is in 1696, and in 1696 to doubt the realm of England 
extended to the narrow seas would itself be such an act as might have 
been extremely dangerous to a century earlier. I am reading two-thirds 
down column 488. The prisoner was indicted for " being then on the 
" high seas, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, about 
" 14 leagues from Deal, did then and there by force and arms falsely, 
" maliciously, and traitorously aid and help and assist the enemies of our 
" said Lord the King." That is the first count. The second is of great 
importance : ' ' As a false traitor against our said Lord the King further 
" designing, practising, and with his whole strength intending the common 
" peace of trapquility of this kingdom of England to disturb," an offence, 
observe, ayfm&i the common peace of the kingdom, <( and a war and 
" rebeli^fi against the said King upon the high seas within the juris- 
11 dictifn%of the Admiralty of England to move, stir up, and procure; 
" and the said Lord the King, from the title, honour, royal name, and 
" imperial crown of his kingdom of England, and dominions upon the 
" high seas, to depose and deprive; and miserable slaughter of the sub- 
" jects of the said Lord the King, and this kingdom of England, upon 
" the high seas, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, to cause and pro- 
" cure; on the said 8th day of July, in the said seventh year of the King, 
" upon the high seas, about 14 leagues from Deal, and within the 
" dominion of the Crown of England, and within the jurisdiction of the 
" Admiralty of England aforesaid "; then with other traitors war against 
the King he levied and waged; he levied and waged war. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It was not upon a British vessel, was it? I 
do not gather that; it was on a French vessel; it was not within the 
theory that an English ship is a portion of the Dominions? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It is laid as within the Admiralty jurisdic- 
tion. The " Franconia " showed us that the ordinary Admiralty juris- 
diction was not, at any rate, beyond the three-mile limit, and this was 14 
leagues from Deal; the facts were that it was not on a British ship, and 
it was levied outside the Admiralty jurisdiction. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Outside the common law jurisdiction and within the 
Admiralty jurisdiction, and not being a British ship, it being a French 
G 81 



Sir Roger Casement. 



ship, shows that he must have been within the realm. I will show you 
by overwhelming authority that he was within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE The indictment alleges it as such. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The indictment alleges it as being within the realm, 
and it further provides: " And the said Thomas Vaughan then and there 
" being aboard the said ship of war called the ' Loyal Clencarty,' assembled 
" with other false rebels and traitors as aforesaid." That is a word 
applicable only within the realm. " Assembled with the other false 
" rebels and traitors as aforesaid, maliciously, wickedly, and traitorously 
" sailed a cruising to several maritime places, with the aforesaid ship 
" of war called the ' Loyal Clencarty,' with an intent to take, spoil, and 
" carry away the ships, goods, and money of our said Lord the King, 
" and his subjects, by force and arms, upon the high and open seas, 
" within the jurisdiction aforesaid; against the duty of his allegiance, the 
11 peace of our Lord the King, his crown and dignities; and likewise 
" against the form of a statute in this case made and provided." 

Now that, I do submit, is the clearest indictment of a man doing 
something within the realm, and I will show you that he was within the 
realm. I will suggest to you that when you look at the President of the 
Court in his relation to the other members of the Court assisting him, 
the President was the judge of the Admiralty Court, and that shows he 
was tried under the 28 Henry, and not the 35 Henry. Had he been 
tried under the 35 Henry for a foreign treason, the Admiralty judge 
would not have sat as the President of it. Now, the question arises 
whether the piracy which was the offence alleged to have been com- 
mitted was within the realm of England. My lords, on that there are 
any number of cases. In The King v. Heyn, in the Law Reports 2, 
Exchequer Division, I wish to cite from page 178. The Chief Justice 
says at the bottom : ' ' Even to our tames the doctrine of the three-mile 
" zone has never been adopted by the writers on English law. To Black - 
" stone, who in his Commentaries treats of the sea with reference to the 
" prerogative, as also to his modern editor, Mr. Stephen, it is unknown, 
"equally so to Mr. Chitty, whose work on the prerogative is of the 
" present century. It was not till the beginning of this century that any 
" mention of such a doctrine occurs in the Courts of this country. But 
" to the Continental jurists the suggestion of Bynkershovk seemed a 
" happy solution of the great controversy as to the freedom of the sea." 
In Coke upon Littleton, section 432, it is said: " For if a man be upon 
"the sea of England, he is within the kingdom or realm of England and 
" within the ligeance of the King of England and of his Crown of Eng- 
" land. And yet the high sea is out of the jurisdiction of the common 
" law and within the jurisdiction of the Lord Admiral." Selden defines 
the boundary of the kingdom of England " Within the kingdom is taken 
" for that which is within the four seas," at page 387, and at page 399 
he says " within the four seas and within the realm signifies one and 
" the same thing." He says the realm means more than the land of 
England, and he shows the Admiralty Commissioners' jurisdiction extends 
far beyond it. In Hale De Jure Maris it is said, " The narrow sea 
" adjoining to the coast of England is part of the waste and demesnes 
82 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

" and dominions of the King of England whether it lie within the body 
"of any country or not. This is abundantly proved by Master Selden." 
Then he goes on to distinguish between the wide sea, as he calls it, as 
out of the precincts of the seas belonging to the realm of England, and 
he speaks of the narrow seasi at 11 and 14. Selden cites the Admiralty 
Commission to show that the territorial waters of the British Channel 
terminated only with the coast of France. As late as the seventeenth 
century, I think you will find, my recollection is this, cases in which com- 
plaint was actually made by a certain king, the Spanish or the Dutch, 
that the King of England had failed in his duty of neutrality of keeping 
the King's peace up to the French shore. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You need not labour that point, at any 
rate, as we are at present advised that The King v. Vaughan does not 
bind us. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Very well, my lord. Now if The King v. Vaughan 
does not deal with the matter, the next argument of the Attorney-General 
in The King v. Lynch was the statute of the 18 of George II. That is 
set out in extenso in the shorthand notes, if I may quote from them, at page 
112. The King v. Vaughan, the Attorney-General said, was the chief 
authority upon which he relied, and I think he puts it forward as being a 
matter of considerable importance. The chief difficulty I feel is that 
there are so many authorities. He puts it in the forefront of his argu- 
ment. Now I will come to deal with the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY It is the 18 George II.? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes; chapter 30. Now I will cite the statute, and 
I would ask your lordships to bear in mind this : there were two statutes 
of Henry VIII. dealing with all sorts of offences. As regards the first 
one, the recital sets out that there are treasons, felonies, murders, 
robberies, and so forth, which escaped unpunished, which are committed 
on the King's dominions on the high seas, because they have to be tried 
under the civil law. They are all civil law offences, and have to be 
tried by the civil law of the Admiralty. They removed that, and the 
statute of 28 Henry VIII. provided a tribunal, or, rather, provided a 
procedure to enable the tribunal to try them according to the course of 
the common law. Now, the statute of 28 Henry VIII. dealt with all 
sorts of offences committed within what was called the King's dominions 
on the high seas, and I will have to comment on that, that if there was a 
foreign law of treason it must have been noted at the time. At all events 
that was only with regard to the argument of The King v. Vaughan 
which I have disposed of, and I will not refer to it. But under the 
statute of Henry VIII., at the time of the Act of 1745 which I shall 
read to your lordship, the following difficulty had arisen. Indicted 
under the statute of Henry for piracy committed in the King's jurisdic- 
tion of the high seas outside of the four seas, the pirates produced letters 
of commission of alien enemies accordingly justifying themselves by the 
fact that they were not pirates hostes humani generis, but only persons 
committing piracy within the 28 Henry VIII. by breach of allegiance 
and making war upon the King's ships, which were so many castles of 
the King. It stands in this way, that it does seem somewhat amusing 

83 



Sir Roger Casement. 



that a man for being a pirate should be anxious to prove that he was 
something worse ; but, in fact, that course was being taken, and doubts 
had arisen whether the production of the commission of the alien 
persons at war with the Crown removed that offence against the King's 
ships from the category mentioned, namely, the treasons that were cog- 
nisable by the Court of Admiralty according to the civil law. 

There being that distinction to draw I rely on my argument before 
I approach the case that the civil law recognised the breach of the personal 
allegiance on the high seas without the realm of England, but still within 
the King's dominion of the high seas, and within the jurisdiction of the 
Admiralty, which was a civil law as recited in the statute. It was to 
remove those doubts that this Act was passed in 1745, and what did it 
provide? It provided, first, that notwithstanding that he had an alien 
commission, and thereby adhering to the King's enemies on the high seas 
without the realm he would have committed the civil law offence of one 
of the treasons mentioned in 28 Henry VIII. , that though he should prove 
that, he might be nevertheless tried for piracy as originally indicted on 
his commission of the alien enemy which was to save him from being 
tried as a pirate. It had two other provisions. It provided that if he 
was convicted or acquitted as a pirate he should not be tried again for 
high treason, and it winds up by a proviso, that where he is not proceeded 
against as a pirate he is not to be free the statute did not interfere 
with the right to indict him as. a person committing a treason on the 
high seas; under what statute? Under the statute of 28 Henry VIII., 
and the misapprehension of that reading in The King v. Vauphan was that 
if you read it as making a person liable to be charged with high treason 
without the realm, as Lord Alverstone did, as being applicable to solid 
ground outside the realm, it would be an authority against me, but he 
is not to be tried for high treason on solid ground. The only statute 
that would refer to that is not the statute of 28 Henry VIII., which you 
are at liberty to proceed under by the saving clause of the Act of 1745 ; 
it is the statute with regard to the foreign treasons passed in 35 Henry 
VIII., and passed, I submit, to deal, not with the statute of Edward, but 
to deal with the infinite multitude of what I may term fancy treasons that 
had grown up by special statutes in the reign of Henry VIII. which ren- 
dered it extremely difficult to say from day to day whether one's opinions 
were loyal or treasonable. Owing to the number of statutes in the reign 
of Henry VIII. creating special offences for treason, that was followed 
in 35 Henry VIII. by a statute of foreign treasons enabling for the first 
time foreign treasons abroad, of which I think at the time there were a 
multitude, to be tried within the realm of England. 

Now I will refer to the statute of 1745, and I think it bears out 
exactly what I said. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICBI It seems extraordinary to contemplate 
that according to the common law of this country if a person committed 
this offence abroad, and he could be got within the realm, you could 
not prosecute him as a traitor. 

Mr. SULLIVAN According to the case in Dyer, if that be an authority, 
until the statute was passed enabling you to do so, you could not do it. 
84 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I wanted to look at that case, but I have 
not looked at it, because you said you would refer to it later. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am sure that Lord Coke in dealing in the Third 
Institutes with piracy says practically the same thing, if I may turn to 
the Third Institute again. I am not quite sure Lord Coke does not say 
the same thing under the head of " Piracy " in chapter 49. He says on 
page 113 (this is apropos of piracy), " Treason done out of the realm 
" is declared to be treason by the statute of 25 Edward III." that is the 
one we are construing here "and yet at the making of this Act of 28 
" Henry VIII. it wanted trial at common law." So, according to Lord 
Coke, he points out at page 113 that until 28 Henry VIII. these acts were 
not triable at common law. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a very strong statement of the law 
against you by Lord Coke. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It begins by the assumption that treason 
outside the realm was triable. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, but treason done out of the realm is declared to 
be treason. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICEI By the statute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN By the statute that we are discussing. I have Lord 
Coke's authority against me, and I have sought to face that candidly. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE You have Sir Matthew Hale and the obiter 
dictum in the House of Lords against you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The obiter dictum is not the expression of an opinion, 
but purports to be the quotation from something. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE! Mr. Justice Willes is delivering the judg- 
ment of all the judges in the House of Lords, and if you look at the 
judgment of the House of Lords, Lord Cairns agrees with every word, with 
all the opinions and views expressed. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If that establishes that the quotation is correct I cer- 
tainly would have no case, but it is a quotation. He purports to quote 
the statute, and if that was the statute I should not have to trouble your 
lordships. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE What do you mean by "purported to quote 
the statute? " 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is in inverted commas. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE He is saying what he thinks the Act enacts ; 
it is almost incredible that he made the mistake of omitting words from 
the statute when he purported to quote it correctly just before. If he 
purported to say what the statute really enacted and put it in inverted 
commas, then it would be against you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It would. He quotes the words accurately in the 
immediately preceding passage. In the case of The Queen v. Mulcahy 
that observation had nothing to do with the case. It points to the fact 
that at common law there surely could not be known an offence for which 
a man could not be tried, and Lord Coke himself states that although 
treason done out of the realm is declared to be treason by statute, a statute 
can create any offence, but common law was certainly not cognisant of 
offences that it could not try itself, and yet at the making of this Act of 
28 Henry VIII. it wanted trial at common law. 

85 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Doe not the statute of 35 Henry VIII. assume 
that certain treasons at all events committed abroad were triable here 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN Certainly. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT What are- they, do you say ; what treasons do you 
say are triable here? 

Mr. SULLIVAN To go through the various statutes of Henry VIII. 
would wander, to some extent, when one recollects that within a very 
short period it was enacted by statute to be treason anywhere at any time 
or at any place so far as I read the statute, first to believe that Elizabeth 
was legitimate, and you are given every permutation and combination of 
the King's views on subjects such as that, also view on ecclesiastical 
subjects, and view on theology. Offences of all sorts were created and 
made treason under the statute of Henry VIII. The history of treason 
in that reign is the most interesting thing, and I should have thought 
that 38 Henry VIII. was a climax to enable a great number of these 
offences to be tried which had been created in his reign, and had not been 
tried because the common law had no cognisance of them if they were out 
of the realm, and they certainly could not be done out of the realm, 
according to the terms 1 of a great number of statutes. The 35 Henry VIII. 
was passed with reference to treason as a very large code or not a code 
because he is substituting one for another, but, at all events, combining 
a large number of statutes creating offences which could be punished as 
treason, though committed out of the realm, and would enable them to be 
dealt with, provision for which did not exist if Lord Coke is right in his 
appreciation of it, and if the opinions of the judges were right as late as 
Philip and Mary. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT That is what I w r asi putting to you, that the only 
object of the Act of 35 Henry VIII. is, as the words say, " Forasmuch 
" as some doubts and questions have been moved, that certain kinds 
"of treasons" can be tried here. It was for the purpose of making 
those, if I may adopt the phrase you used, eccentric forms of treasons 
which you have just been referring to. 

Mr. SULLIVAN When committed out of the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT For the purpose of making them triable. Does 
not that enactment assume that that which had always been triable at 
common law was already triable. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The recital of the statute, I submit, shows that the 
cases could not have been tried, because the recitals show it ; it deals with 
all matters declared to be treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT It begins by saying that " Doubts and questions 
" have been moved, that certain kinds of treasons, misprisions, and con- 
" cealments of treasons done, perpetrated, or committed out of the King's 
" Majesty's realm of England," might by the common law be inquired 
into within the realm ; that is the only doubt that has arisen. I should 
rather assume that when no doubt has ever arisen what was known to be 
treason by the common law was already triable. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " That all manner of offences being already made and 
"declared " 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT I think you must begin earlier. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " Forasmuch as some doubts and questions have been 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

" moved, that certain kinds of treasons, misprisions, and concealments of 
"treasons done, perpetrated, or committed out of the King's Majesty's 
" common laws of this realm cannot be inquired of, heard, and determined 
"within this his said realm of England." 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT That is only the certain kinds of treason there 
referred to. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Might I submit the certain kinds of treasons are to 

be found reading on, " For a plain remedy order and declaration therein 

" to be had and made" that is with reference to those matters " be 

"it enacted by authority of this present Parliament, that all manner 

" of offences, being already made and declared, or hereafter to be made 

' or declared by any of the laws and statutes of this realm, to be treasons 1 , 

' misprisions of treasons, or concealments of treasons, and done, per- 

' petrated, or committed, or hereafter to be done, perpetrated, or com- 

' mitted by any persons out of this realm of England, shall be from 

' henceforth inquired of, heard, and determined before the King's justices 

"of his Bench, for pleas to be holden before himself." That shows 

it was all triable by the King's Bench. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT That only sweeps them all into that statute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, it does. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is from that statute that the King's 
Bench derives the authority for trying all treasons committed abroad. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If such there be. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is for that reason that this case is being 
tried here. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If such there be ; anything that is treason ; it creates 
no new treason it is mere procedure. The importance is that the 
necessity for the statute was that the King's Bench, which was the repre- 
sentative of the common law, had no jurisdiction till it got the statute, so 
says Dyer, and if, therefore, you have no jurisdiction till you get a statute, 
I submit that that is conclusive that the offence did not exist at common 
law. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Just follow the argument you put with the 
point that Mr. Justice Avory puts to you. Your argument is that it could 
not be treason outside the realm, because it was not triable by the King's 
Bench. That is as I understand your argument. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN At common law. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That statute says expressly that there are 
treasons abroad which cannot be tried here, and which therefore the statute 
enacts shall be tried here, and therefore if your argument is correct there 
would be no treason abroad at that time, because the very ones they 
are dealing with here and saying are treasons are things which they say 
cannot be triable at law. 

Mr. SULLIVAN At the time of 35 Henry VIII. I stated there were a 
great number of treasons. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE If they could not be treasons when committed 
abroad because the King's Bench could not try them the whole principle 
of the Act is wrong. 

Mr. SULUVAN I did not say that, for, as I stated, the common law 
could have no knowledge of crimes that it could not investigate, but the 
statute could create a crime in any part of the world, and the statute 

87 



Sir Roger Casement. 

might provide for this trial if it provides that anything already made and 
declared by any law or statute of this realm to be treason may be tried. 
It is not that the statute would not make it a treason because it could 
not be tried, but I suggest common law knew no treason that it, at all events, 
could not try. That is my argument which I submit to your lordships. 
The importance of that with regard to the argument on the Act of 1745 
is that the proviso at the end is not a proviso as read by the Court in 
The King v. Lynch. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE In Archbold, at the foot of that statute, it 
goes on as to the mode of trial of treasons committed without the realm 
before the passing of this statute, see 2 Hawkins, chapter 25, section 48, 
and they refer to Plait's case, 1 Leach, page 168. You seem to have 
Hawkins against you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The last part of the statement on that page is in my 
favour. To enforce my argument as to the common law I will refer to 
the section relied upon by the Crown in the Act of 1745 " Provided that 
" nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to extend to prevent 
' ' any persons guilty of any of the said crimes, who shall not be tried 
" according to this Act, from being tried for high treason within this 
" realm, according to the aforesaid act of the twenty-eighth year of King 
"Henry the Eighth." 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Are you reading the statute of 5 and 6 
Edward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, the Act of 18 George II. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The 1745 Act. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, in the shorthand notes that is being cited. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Have you looked at Plait's case in 1 Leach? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have. I am going to refer to it. The King v. 
Plait was an application for habeas corpus. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT That is quite consistent with good law being 
laid down. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The best of law is consistent with habeas corpus. In 
that case it does not appear what the matter charged was. It was high 
treason. Now within the words of the statute of Edward that we are 
discussing the first section might be construed in terms to extend to com- 
passing the King's death anywhere in the world, and the terms are wide 
enough to cover it. All that I am arguing is that where the terms of 
the statute are not wide enough to cover it, it could not be extended, and 
accordingly we do not know what the charge against Platt was except 
that it was high treason. The decision arose on warrant, and warrant 
only. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Listen to- thisi passage from the report. " This 
" warrant therefore contains sufficient certainty to show that the high 
" treason which it charges the prisoner with having committed was, in fact, 
" committed out of the realm of England. It was the ancient opinion, 
" that the species of treason which consists, by 25 Edward III., chapter 2, 
"in adhering to the King's enemies, might be tried, before the statute 
"35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, within the kingdom, by the rules of the 
" common law, though the aid and comfort was* afforded without the 
" realm." That is a direct authority that that particular treason can be 






Motion to Quash Indictment. 

tried -within the realm, although the aid and comfort to the enemy is given 
without the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There are a number of cases in which it has been done 
in this sense when the offender is within the realm. That was the case 
of The King v. Wheldon ; where the offender is within the realm, he may 
aid and comfort the enemy outside the realm, and be guilty of the offence 
charged; that is the opinion of Mr. Justice Finucane. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He may be within the realm, although 
giving the aid and comfort without the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, the offence may be committed within the realm, 
he being there, the offender. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE; He may send information. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He may. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT That was Plait's case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Plait's case does not show what he isi charged with 
at all. He was charged with treason at Savannah. The question for 
decision in Plait's case was, could the Court deal with him, and they 
held they could not, because they were not the Court to try him. They 
held they were not the Court under 35 Henry VIII., and therefore 
application for habeas corpus should be made to the Court that could try 
him; that contention did prevail, so that was the net decision of Platt's 



Mr. JUSTICE AVORT The decision was they refused the habeas corpus. 

Mr. SULLIVAN They did ; they said they had no jurisdiction to enter 
into the matter at all; they were not the right Court to have cognisance 
of the matter, because they were not the Court within 35 Henry VIII. 
Now, it is a most significant fact that, whatever observations you may find, 
you cannot find in any reported oases a prosecution under the statute in 
which the point is decided other than The King v. Lynch. The King v. 
Lynch proceeds on The King v. Vaughan expressly ; your lordships are 
satisfied that that supposed view of the judgment disappears, and with 
the foundation the edifice goes too. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Supposing you put your pen through The 
King v. Lynch, assume that you are entitled to do that, at any rate, 
in this Court, which is a doubtful proposition, considering that we are a 
Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, but assuming you could get back to 
the words of the statute, everything must turn upon the words of the 
statute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is all I am arguing. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The whole point is whether the word "else- 
'' where" governs "aid and comfort" or governs "adhering to the 
" King's enemies." 

Mr. SULLIVAN I should not have kept your lordships for the length 
of time I have done were not it that I thought that there stood in my 
way of coming down to the words of the statute what appeared to be the 
authorities which required to be analysed as giving the words of the 
statute a meaning different to what they should ordinarily bear. That 
has been the point of my argument, and is my apology for taking up so 
much time. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do not think you have occupied too much 

89 



Sir Roger Casement. 



time. Supposing you have done what you set out to do this is what I 
mean you still get back to the statute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit the words of the statute themselves, unless 
you are driven by authority to give them some different meaning, and I 
submit you are not, are reasonably plain and absolutely clear with 
regard to the offence charged, otherwise may I point out this, that if the 
words of the statute mean the charge that I have read out in this indict- 
ment, why is it that they are not set out as being the charge? The 
fact that the statute is not quoted, and the fact that something is alleged 
that is not in terms within the statute, is the foundation of my argument, 
that that which is alleged here, not being the wording of the statute, is, 
in fact, a contortion of the statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I follow. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The words are, " If a man do levy war against our 
" Lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in 
"his realm giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere." 
Have not the words "in the realm" the same significance in both con- 
texts? The word " or " occurs before the words " be adherent "; there 
is no suggestion of the word "or" before the words "giving aid and 
" comfort." Levying war and adhering are two offences, not three. 
The construction sought to be placed on the statute by the Crown provides 
three offences out of these two clauses I have read, because a man may 
be charged with either being adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, 
or on the construction of the statute contended for, charged with giving 
them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That does not necessarily follow; it may be 
that there are two offences; the first one, if a man do levy war against 
our Lord the King in his realm or elsewhere, and the second offence, the 
word "elsewhere" governing both, adhering to the King's enemies in his 
realm, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or elsewhere. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The statute has been in consideration for a very long 
time, and I am not aware that that construction of " elsewhere " applied 
to "within the realm" in regard to levying war has ever before been 
suggested in any case. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It may not be necessary to do- it, but it does 
not follow that it makes three offences. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I agree. My only apology for not at the moment 
answering your lordship's observation is that, so far as I had been able 
to investigate the statute and read it, at the moment I do not remember 
having that opinion (suggested to me before, or have I noticed it. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It may be it only makes two, if you are 
correct, one levying war against the King in his realm, and the other by 
adhering to the King's enemies in his realm or elsewhere. The definition 
of adhering is giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The whole question really is whether you 
read the words "aiding and comforting" as if they were in a bracket. 
If you do that, Coke, Hale, Hawkins, and Fitzherbert are all of them 
right ; if you do not do that then there is a considerable foundation for 
your argument that you must read the words " or elsewhere," as if they 
were the alternative of giving aid and comfort within the realm. If 
you do read them, on the other hand, as laying down that the offence 
90 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

is adhering to the King's enemies within his realm or elsewhere, you give 
full meaning to the words "giving aid and comfort" as words which 
are describing and manifesting the intent with which the statute is there 
dealing. Giving aid and comfort as manifesting the intent would apply 
both to adherence to the King' si enemies within the realm, and to 
adherence to the King's enemies without the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I agree, if you deal with it on the basis of being 
adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, and they were simply 
defined as being giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere ; 
that is one construction, but it is a totally different construction ; we are 
not dealing with brackets. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE^ There is authority for saying we have no 
right to look at brackets. We decided that in this Court, or at least 
expressed an opinion after hearing the authorities in this Court quite 
recently, and there is the authority of Lord Esher in the Court of Appeal 
for saying you must disregard brackets. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The construction must be on the express terms of 
the statute as they stand. You do not attribute to a statute words that 
are repugnant unless you are driven to it; you do not attribute to a 
statute that it is tautological; you merely read it and give effect to the 
statute as being couched in the necessary terms to expound its own 
meaning. If therefore you have to expound the statute by its own terms, 
I submit that it is clear from the Norman French that the giving them 
aid and comfort refers solely to the man, the person named in the prior 
part of the statute, and the person who at the date of the statute had to 
be within the realm, and therefore to be tried. Looking at the Norman 
French, according to the grammatical construction, it is the person who 
shall be adherent, giving them aid and comfort, wherever they may be, 
adherent to the King's 1 enemies in his realm. 

The LORD CHEEP JUSTICE The Norman French does not help you; 
it brings you back to the same point. I have looked at it, and it leaves you 
just where you were. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is perfectly clear, I submit, on the grammatical 
construction, within his realm must be given effect to in that context 
there, and "donnant" is not a description of the offence committed, 
it is only a description of the overt acts by which it may be proved. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The difficulty which I always feel isi that 
you are arguing it before us as if it was a case of first impression. We 
have to deal with it with the authority of all these great authorities of the 
common law, who all say the law of treason is applicable outside the 
King's realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I quite recognise it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE So far as I know I have no doubt you have 
had the opportunity of far greater search than I have been able to make I 
know of no authority in any text-book in your favour. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Nor do I. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a strong construction when we are 
dealing with authorities such as Coke, Hale, Hawkins, and Fitzherbert. 

Mr. SULLIVAN What I submit is a matter of great importance is 
this, that a text-book is an excellent exposition of the common law, when 
you require what was the common law received prior to the law regulating 

91 



Sir Roger Casement. 



the affairs of man and man at a distant date, for that is the common 
law, but text-books are no authority on the construction of a statute unless 
they are vouched by judicial decisions that that construction is right. The 
statute is the primary expounder of its own meaning; the text-book is 
an excellent exposition of what was the received opinion of lawyers after 
the statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do not want to interrupt you I am afraid 
we have been doing so a good deal lately for the purpose of elucidating the 
point but you must not take me as assenting to that proposition. I 
cannot myself assent to the position that when you find all the great 
authorities on the law of England for three or four centuries stating that 
the law of England is laid down in a particular statute, and is so and so, 
that we shall pay no attention to those words, and disregard them, unless you 
can find something which shows that those opinions are entirely wrong. 
I think we are bound to pay great attention to them myself. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I quite appreciate that view. What I wanted to 
convey was, if these authorities are to be regarded, or if the terms of the 
statute are to be regarded, we have to go back to the terms of the statute 
to get the construction, and if the proper construction of the statute is 
what I suggest, then it is the words of the statute you must pay attention 
to. I put it no more than that. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I quite agree with that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There are nine cases on this section that we have been 
discussing, I hope not at too great a length, and in every case the dis- 
tinction has been, if he could be said within the jurisdiction to aid the 
enemy without. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE May not the reason be that you do not get 
cases of treason or adhering to the enemy without the realm reported in 
our text-books, because when a person commits treason without the realm 
he takes care to stay there? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Unless you get them within the realm you 
cannot get them. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I must apologise for occupying so long. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE You have not given us the 2 Dyer yet. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We will have that to-morrow. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have been applying for the 2 Dyer but I have not had 
it yet. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTIC?E Anyhow we will deal with that to-morrow. 

Adjourned till to-morrow morning at 10.15 o'clock. 



92 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 



Third Day Wednesday, 28th June, 1916. 

Mr. SULLIVAN My lords, I had concluded my observations when the 
Court rose. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You were going to call attention to the case 
in the 2 Dyer. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, but will your lordship allow one of my friends 
to go on? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Certainly. 

Mr. MORGAN May it please your lordships ; in this case I should like 
to add a few words. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is a difficulty about this; by the 
statute there are two counsel assigned ; if it is merely to call attention to 
that part of the argument which had already been dealt with by you, 
merely to the case in 2 Dyer we will hear Mr. Morgan as amicus curice in 
the matter. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Might I suggest the true reading of the statute is 
really to provide for the defence of prisoners in certain trials, and one of 
them is a trial for treason. There are provisions in the statute enabling 
counsel to be assigned to the defence of those charged for capital offences 
unable to defend themselves. Those who do defend themselves, I submit, 
are in no worse position by the statute in not taking the counsel assigned 
to them, in the sense of assigned counsel only, than one unable to 
assign his own counsel; he should not be in a worse position on the 
reading of the statute, and I would ask your lordships to adopt that view 
of the statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Whatever the view may be as to that, it 
is unnecessary to determine it, because we will hear Mr. Morgan, reserv- 
ing that point, and treat him as amicus curice in the matter. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am very much indebted to your lordships. 

Mr. MORGAN May it please your lordships, my learned friend, Mr. 
Sullivan, drew attention yesterday to the opinion of the judges recorded 
in 2 Dyer, 131b, in the 2 Philip and Mary. I submit the language of 
the charge in that case is most emphatic and does not admit of any 
ambiguity. It says, " No offence of treason committed out of the 
" realm was triable here by the course of the common law." I submit 
that no lawyer at that time could possibly have come to any other con- 
clusion. I think your lordship put the question yesterday as to whether 
or not we held that adhering to the King's enemy without the realm 
was not an offence at common law. I submit certainly until 
the statute of 35 Henry VIII., and as we contend after it, 
it was not an offence at common law. The authorities on the point that 
an offence committed outside the King's realm and dominions is not an 
offence at common law, and if it is an offence is not triable here, are 

93 



Sir Roger Casement. 



overwhelming, and no mediaeval lawyer would come to any other con- 
clusion. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You say they are overwhelming, but 
where are they? According to the statute of Henry VIII., it seems to 
me- plain that there were certain forms of treason which undoubtedly 
then existed, and which were offences of treason committed without the 
realm; that is clear from the statute. 

Mr. MORGAN And triable here? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No; there are two separate points. What 
I am putting to you is that there were offences of treason committed 
without the realm; the statute of Henry VIII. says so. I have not the 
exact language before me, but it says there are some offences already 
declared and those which may be declared in the future. 

Mr. MORGAN But they must have been statutory offences declared 
by statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What I want to know is, have you con- 
sidered what those are? 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, I have; one will be compassing the King's death. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is by statute? 

Mr . M ORGAN Yes . 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Under which statute is that? 

Mr. MORGAN The 25 Edward III., which contains no words 
of limitation about " within the realm " as regards the particular kind 
of treason. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What do you say would be the effect? 
According to that reading of the statute of 1351, the words " within the 
" realm " are not there to qualify in any way the effect of the words 
" compassing the King's death.'' Then do I understand your view to 
be that, notwithstanding that, the offence would be triable and punish- 
able if committed without the realm? 

Mr. MORGAN Would be or would not be? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Would be. 

Mr. MORGAN Before the 35 Henry VIII.? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN No; certainly not. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Was the offence created? 

Mr. MORGAN That is open to argument. I think it may have been. 
There were no words of limitation as regards " within the realm " in 
connection with the definition of compassing, and therefore it was open 
to hold that Parliament had declared that as regards the offence of 
compassing the King's death the treason might be committed out of the 
realm; but in the absence of that declaration I do not think the common 
law would have ever held that it was a crime. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am not satisfied about that. 

Mr. MORGAN The authorities on that point, Stephen and Arch- 
bold, and the case of The King v. M'Leod, are absolutely clear, that 
according to English common law all crime is local. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The question is whether this is not the one 
exception; murder was made an exception. 
94 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, by statute; but it was expressly said murder 
wherever committed. I do not know, having regard to the view of trial 
by jury taken by mediaeval lawyers, how they could have come to any 
other conclusion. All offences by common law must be tried by a jury 
of neighbours; that is the whole point of the venue. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must not be under the impression, 
speaking for myself, that that satisfies me, because I called attention 
yesterday to the passage in Hale which is important upon the point to 
the contrary. 

Mr. MORGAN May I ask that passage? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE My impression is it is page 169 of the 
first volume of Hale's Pleas of the Crown. It is the reference to the case 
in the 5 Richard II. This is what Sir Matthew Hale says: " But at 
"common law he might have been indicted in any county of England, 
" and especially where the offender's lands lie if he have any." That 
is dealing with the trial of foreign treason; that is adhering to the 
King's enemy and also for compassing the King's death without the 
kingdom. It begins: " Touching the trial of high treason." That is 
the passage I read yesterday. 

Mr. MORGAN I think that authority is in the hands of my learned 
friends, the counsel for the Crown; I do not know what they make of 
the passage; it is in Norman French in Fitzherbert. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I wish to bring to your attention that there 
is very distinct authority in the plainest language to the contrary of 
what you were asserting. 

Mr. MORGAN There seems very considerable doubt upon it. Hawkins, 
in his Pleas of the Crown, refers to it at page 306. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE The Attorney-General referred to it. 

Mr. MORGAN It is Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, volume 2, page 
306, chapter 25, section 48: "It seems to have been a great doubt 
" before the making of the statute of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, in what 
" manner and in what place high treason done out of the realm was to 
"be tried." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It assumes the offence; the only question 
is how the offence was to be tried. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Would you go on with the passage? 

Mr. MORGAN It does not say aohering to the King's enemies; com- 
passing would be high treason done out of the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I understood you to say that the words of 
the statute of Edward had made it clear that compassing the King's 
death outside the realm was brought within the law of treason, because 
there were no words " in the realm" following; but before that there 
was no power to try any treason. 

Mr. MORGAN I said before the 35 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That is later still. 

Mr. MORGAN I said that by the statute of 25 Edward III. compassing 
might be held to be an offence anywhere; it does not say whether within 
or without the kingdom. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Therefore there was no treason at that 

95 



Sir Roger Casement. 



time, according to you, before the statute of Edward III., committed 
outside the realm? 

Mr. MORGAN I very much doubt whether there was. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGB What the Lord Chief Justice pointed out was 
that that passage from Hawkins assumed that there are such things as 
treasons committed outside the realm. 

Mr. MORGAN Certainly, it comes between the 25 Edward III. and 
the 35 Henry VIII. There may have been certain treasons which, 
though not triable owing to defects of jurisdiction, were none the less 
treasons when committed out of the realm ; but it does not refer to adher- 
ing to the King's enemies; that must refer to compassing. It proceeds: 
" For some seem to have holden, that it was triable only upon an appeal 
" before the constable and marshal." That is the whole of our case. 
All the cases quoted by Coke and Hale before 1535, with perhaps this 
one exception, were cases either of military sentence, as Hale puts it, in 
the High Court of Parliament, as he says at volume 1, page 238: " I 
" know no authority on the question of treasons for other sentences 
" than the High Court of Parliament or the Constable and Marshal." 
The only jurisdiction to be exercised over treasons done without the realm 
before the 35 Henry VIII. must have been either that jurisdiction or 
the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT That is what some people thought. Read also 
what other people thought. 

Mr. MORGAN " Others, that it might be tried upon an indictment, 
"laying the offence in any county where the King pleased." I do not 
observe any authority for that. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Except Hawkins is an authority. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE; And Lord Coke, the authority of the 
Institutes. 

Mr. MORGAN Coke, in the Institutes, does not give any authority 
except the single case that Hale refers to. Lord Coke's authorities for 
trial for adhering to the King's enemy without the realm are cases in 
Parliament which, as my learned friend pointed out yesterday, do not 
recite the word " treason " in the statute at all, and they are not cases 
of treason: " And others, that it was triable by way of indictment in 
" that county only wherein the offender had lands." I have not had 
time to look up the authority cited, and I do not know what it is : " But 
" surely it cannot reasonably be doubted " then he quotes Dyer 131b, 
which is dead against him " but that it was triable some way or other; 
11 for it cannot be imagined that an offence of such dangerous conse- 
" quence, and expressly within the purview of 25 Edward III., should 
" be wholly dispunishable, as it must have been, if it were no way 
" triable." That is simply an idle speculation. He throws up his 
hands and says he cannot understand how it could have been other- 
wise. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Hawkins was rather an authority. 

Mr. MORGAN That is a purely speculative passage. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY It is not an uncommon way of expressing a 
judgment. 
96 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

Mr. MORGAN Can that get over the plain words of the statute? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You can hardly say that the great masters 
of the common law in past times simply threw up their hands and specu- 
lated upon what was the law; they are laying down the law; at least 
they are stating what they, great exponents of the law, thought was 
the law in those days. 

Mr. MORGAN Can that do away with the plain words of the statute? 
We are dealing with the construction of the statute. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I agree that it cannot. 

Mr. MORGAN Nearly all these authorities are based upon Coke, regard- 
ing whom Stephen says that his authority on matters of legal history is 
absolutely worthless. He speaks of his extraordinarily disordered mind, 
and the way in which whenever he comes across 1 two words which mean the 
same thing he thinks they mean different things, which is obviously what 
he has done with regard to this clause of the statute. 

Attention was drawn to the case in Leach of The King v. Platt. I 

admit that those words of obiter dictum there used would seem at first sight 

to tell against us. The words are " It was the ancient custom " I do 

not think any authorities are given " that the species of treason which 

"consists by 25 Edward III., chapter 2, in adhering to the King's enemies, 

' might be tried, before the statute 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, within the 

' kingdom, by the rules of the common law, though the aid and comfort 

' was afforded without the realm, but that every other species of treason 

'committed out of the realm must be tried in the place where it was 

' committed, or under the provisions of that Act of Parliament." Well, 

all I can say is, in the first place, that passage is directly contradicted 

by the authority in 131b of Dyer. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT The case in Dyer is not a judgment delivered in 
open Court after argument ; it is an opinion expressed by some judges who 
met together at Serjeants' Inn. 

Mr. MORGAN Quite so. I should have thought the opinion of the 
judges who met together in Serjeants' Inn would outweigh the opinion, 
for instance, of Sir Edward Coke writing in his library and quoting 
authorities which it is evident he had never read. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT You are assuming two facts of which there is no 
proof, either that he wrote them in his library or that he did not know 
what he was talking about. 

Mr. MORGAN My learned friend, I think, proved that yesterday by 
his quotation from the Rolls of Parliament which Coke cites and which do 
not bear him out. I think that passage in The King v. Platt is capable of 
an interpretation which is not inconsistent either with Dyer or with the 
statute of the 35 Henry VIII. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE In the case in Dyer what was being discussed 
was how the case was to be tried, not whether the offence had been 
committed. 

Mr. MORGAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE The point for discussion there was whether or 

not the statute of Philip and Mary had repealed the provisions for trial 

under the statutes of Henry. That was the direct question for consideration. 

I have not had the report before me till now, and I may be wrong with 

H 97 



Sir Roger Casement. 



regard to it. That does not lay down what you read shortly to us " And 
"it seems that notwithstanding this, the statute 35 Henry VIII., chapter 
"2, is in force, because no offence of treason committed out of the realm 
" was triable here by the course of the common law, therefore this statute 
" enlarges the power and authority of the trials of the realm in this point." 
That is the passage you rely upon. It goes on " But for treason committed 
" in a foreign country, and triable in the British realm " that is the 
King's Bench " or in any county at the pleasure of the King, by statute 
" 33 Henry VIII., chapter 23, it seems otherwise." 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, since the statute ; that is my whole point. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The statute of 33 Henry VIII.? 

Mr. MORGAN No, the statute of 35 Henry VIII. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No, it is 33 Henry VIII., chapter 23, 
apparently. 

Mr. MORGAN The point is, the authority is purely statutory. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE The real point they were discussing was whether 
the statute of Philip and Mary had repealed the provisions of 35 Henry 
VIII. 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, but none the less the statement is perfectly clear 
and emphatic. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The difficulty is if you look for authority 
there seems none. The references are to Coke's Institutes and to Hawkins' 
Pleas of the Crown, the two authorities to which we have been referring. 

Mr. MORGAN No, this opinion was delivered before Coke lived. It 
is in the reign of Philip and Mary. These annotations are added by the 
author of the reports. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE They are annotations with reference to it. 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, but one had no right to import them. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The reason I was referring to it isi that, 
apart from that, I do not know what authority there is for the proposition. 

Mr. MORGAN What proposition? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The one mentioned by the judges. 

Mr. MORGAN There is the whole authority of the doctrine of venue in 
the common law. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE The extraordinary thing is what was 
endeavoured to be deduced from that by Mr. Sullivan was if it could not 
be tried in this country it could not exist, and the other sense in which 
you are quoting it is, supposing the offence exists, you say it cannot be 
tried. 

Mr. MORGAN That is not the point I am addressing myself to. I 
am dealing with the point that it could be and was tried before the 35 
Henry VIII. As to the point put by Hale, I say that this statement in 
Dyer, whatever it may say about the existence in the air, so to speak, of 
treason committed abroad, is quite emphatic as against Hale and Coke, 
that treason committed abroad could not be, and never had been, tried here 
by common law. Surely the passage is decisive on that. 

Now, may I turn to the passage in The King v. Platt, and show how 
it supports my argument, although at first it appearsi to admit of quite a 
different construction? "It was the ancient opinion that the species of 
''treason which consists by 25 Edward III., chapter 2, in adhering to the 
" King's enemies, might be tried before the statute 35 Henry VIII., chapter 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

" 2, within the kingdom by the rules of the common law, although the aid 
"and comfort was afforded without the realm/' It does not say without 
the King's dominions; the Act of Henry VIII. does. The very title of the 
statute says that. I do not know whether you see my point, my lord. I 
am trying to contend that the remarks in The King v. Platt are not in the 
least inconsistent with our position. What they say is this, that treason 
without the realm, not without the King's dominions, may have been tried 
before the statute of 35 Henry VIII., but they do not say that treason 
without the King's dominions might have been tried here. My whole point 
is the common law extends all over the King's dominions except where they 
were under their own local law, and therefore the cases that the Court 
may have had in mind are cases where the person within England adhered 
to the King's enemies, and gave them aid and comfort in some other 
portions of His Majesty's dominions. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE If it is right that the statute was declaratory 
of the common law, the statute of Edward III. usesi the word realm, and 
your contention must be, before the statute of Henry VIII., treason com- 
mitted outside the realm, not the King's dominions. 

Mr. MORGAN I am coming to that. The kind of case of adhering 
that he might have had in mind is where the person is within the realm, 
ex hypothesi it might be that he sends letters or intelligence or aid to 
eome other portion of His Majesty's dominions. The act may then be an 
act to be partly committed in this country and partly without this country. 
Nearly all the cases of adhering are cases of that character. Therefore I 
submit that that case bears out my contention. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That is the answer Mr. Sullivan gave yester- 
day; it is not turning on the difference between the King's dominions and 
the realm. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is quite a different point, and it seemed 
a good distinction ; that was what Mr. Sullivan pointed out yesterday ; you 
may have adhering to the King's enemy by giving aid and comfort without 
the realm, and, nevertheless, the adhering to the King's enemy might be an 
act committed within the realm ; that may be quite correct. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I am afraid I have not followed the other point 
you are trying to make the distinction between the King's dominions 
and the realm in the statute of Henry VIII. I tell you candidly I have not 
followed it, and I do not know now what it is. 

Mr. MORGAN The distinction is not of so much importance as the 
point made by my learned friend yesterday. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That we accepted yesterday as being a per- 
fectly sound distinction. 

Mr. MORGAN Does not that contention dispose, or I will not say 
dispose of it, but harmonise The King v. Platt with the case of Dyer. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Speaking for myself, I think if all you 
had to meet was that sentence in the 1 Leach, The King v. Platt, I do not 
think it is against you. I thought that Mr. Sullivan had established 
that on that sentence. 

Mr. MORGAN Then I need not labour that point. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Assume that to be so, you must assume as 
regards giving aid and comfort it existed before the statute outside the 
realm. 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. MORGAN I think that the main point there is, this means treason 
by adhering to the King's enemies without the realm and without the 
dominions ; the point is important because the statute of 25 Edward III. , 
as things were then, could not before the 35 Henry VIII. have supported 
an indictment for treason outside the dominions; it could have supported 
an indictment for treason within the realm, and it could have supported 
an indictment for treason within the dominions, but it could not have 
supported an indictment for compassing outside the dominions till the 35 
Henry VIII. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That assumes the point. 

Mr. MORGAN Does it, my lord? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The question is, what is the meaning to be 
attributed to the words in the statute? 

Mr. MORGAN May I put it this way, is the point that we have to 
meet this, that by common law, before 35 Henry VIII. treason was an 
offence of such a character that, even though committed abroad without 
the dominions, quite independent of the statute 25 Edward III., it was 
an offence at common law? I will address myself to that point. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE As I understand the passage, particularly 
with reference to that passage in Hale and some others, it seems to have 
been regarded as a case of such exceptional gravity, and a crime of 
such exceptional gravity and magnitude, as to form an exception to the 
general rule of the English criminal law that all crime is local; that is 
the point. 

Mr. MORGAN Quite. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I understood Mr. Sullivan yesterday to be 
giving a reason why it was not, from the fact that there could be no 
local venue of it. The statute of Henry VIII. and the case in Dyer both 
assume that the offence can exist although there is no venue for it. That 
would answer his argument as to the reason why these were not triable, 
because there was no venue; they both say where certain treasons exist 
as to which it is very doubtful whether there is power to try they 
recognise the existence of that in each case. 

Mr. MORGAN They do not isay they exist at common law; I contend 
that all the authorities laid down emphatically that no offence at common 
law in the absence of istatute can be committed abroad. I merely draw 
attention to a book like Archbold where he says, in speaking of a venue, 
at page 33, " The natural jurisdiction of the Courts of common law is 
"territorial, and no person can be tried for an offence committed on 
" land abroad except under the authority of the statute." Stephen 
says the same thing : ' ' As a general rule, offences committed by British 
" subjects out of England are not punishable by the criminal law of 
" England." The only exceptions to that were the jurisdiction of the 
constable and marshal, and the statutory exceptions. " All cases in 
" which crimes committed abroad can now be tried in England are cases 
" in which statutory provisions have been made to that effect." If 
you look at M'Leod v. The Attorney-General of New South Wales, it is 
there laid down most emphatically that all crimes are local, and not a 
single exception is made to that statement. 
100 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That was a question as to the extent of 
the jurisdiction of the dominion or of the State. 

Mr. MORGAN The New South Wales Legislature had passed an 
Act making it bigamy for a New South Wales citizen to marry elsewhere, 
being already married in that State. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There seems no doubt, you certainly need 
not labour the proposition before us, which we think is elementary and 
is quite clear, that the general law is that all crime is local. There is 
no doubt about that. There are certain exceptions created by statute, 
and the question is in this particular case whether treason was not an 
exception; but I would also remind you that whatever the view may 
be as to that, it still will not alter the interpretation of the words which 
we have to give to the statute of 1351, which is the point that we must 
always come to, although here we may get some light by investigating 
the common law before the statute came into existence. 

Mr. MORGAN Quite; I am addressing myself for the moment to that 
question of common law jurisdiction. If one has to confine oneself to 
the words of the statute, I submit you cannot get away from that. I 
think it is not without significance that Coke, in quoting the statute, 
it is true, sets out the whole statute in detail in the exact words, but 
when he comes to comment on each particular head of treason, though 
he still quotes the Norman French, he deliberately leaves out the words 
" within his realm " in their first position. I think, to begin with, that 
is a quite indefensible thing to do in commenting upon a statute. 
There is a case of The King v. Wheldon, in which this point was raised. 
At page 11 he leaves out altogether the first words, " within the realm. " 
My learned friend remarks if he leaves them out, they are out, which 
is a very easy way of disposing of the passage. That is really all I 
have to say. I presume, after what your lordship said yesterday about 
The King v. Vaughcm, that we need not deal with the question of 
Admiralty jurisdiction for the reasons which your lordships gave. 

Then I only conclude by drawing your lordships' attention to a 
remark made by Mr. Justice Finucane in The King v. Wheldon. It is 
quoted in The King v. Lynch, and it is in the 26 State Trials, at page 
293. In commenting on these words, " Be adherent to the King's 
" enemies in hisi realm," he makes this remark, " The locality is annexed 
"to the person adhering, not to the enemy to whom he adhered." 
Accordingly, that is the correct interpretation, and, at any rate, the 
words must be understood to come to this, the defendant must have been 
within the realm, or the King's enemies must have been; if it never was 
within the realm it seems to me to be quite impossible to bring the facts 
alleged in the indictment within the statute. That is our case. I thank 
you, my lord, for listening to me so patiently and giving me such 
indulgence. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Before you sit down, if you attribute 
importance to The King v. Wheldon you must make your point a little 
clearer to me. I have not followed your last point. 

Mr. MORGAN I use it simply by way of illustration; it did not 
directly decide the point. I do not quote that case as an authority; 

101 



Sir Roger Casement. 

in fact, the other learned judge sitting, as I frankly admit, judging by his 
remarks, was rather against me; I merely quoted Mr. Justice Finucane's 
remarks, which are in the nature of obiter dictum, as illustrating the point 
at issue that the words " within the realm " must be annexed to some- 
body; they cannot be absolutely meaningless; they occur in the first part of 
the clause, and presumably govern the rest of the clause according to the 
ordinary rules of construction. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Nobody suggests they are meaningless. 

Mr. MORGAN Then I shall leave it for the counsel for the Crown to 
suggest what they do mean. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY This judgment may be important in Wheldon, 
the judgment of Mr. Justice Chamberlain. 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, although it is true on that point, it may tell 
against me. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY " We are also of opinion that the essence of the 
" offence is adhering to the King's enemies, and it is immaterial where 
they are. It is an offence not constituted by statute, but an offence at 
common, law, and the statute only says that no man shall be indicted 
but for treason, as there specified it is not created by the Act. And 
indeed, if it were necessary, it does substantially appear, because two 
overt acts state that an open and public war is carried on by the French, 
and that the prisoner was adhering to the persons 1 exercising the Govern- 
ment of France. So that if it were necessary it is substantially charged 
that he was adhering to the enemies without the realm." 

Mr. MORGAN Quite; I am quite prepared to meet that. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That part must be against you. 

Mr. MORGAN No, I contend it is not, but it is rather in my 
favour. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is the way to deal with the point, 
but you must now prove that it is so. 

Mr. MORGAN Yes, I will try to do BO. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY That was not written in the library. 

Mr. MORGAN No; but I contend that that passage is in my favour, 
while at the same time I freely admit it may be open to another con- 
struction. May I draw attention to the language used by the learned 
judge: " We are of opinion that the essence of the offence is adhering 
" to the King's enemies, and it is immaterial where they are," that is 
the enemies; that is quite consistent with our view in this case, that 
the person was within the realm; he was charged with consulting in 
Ireland the State of France in case they should invade; he was within 
the realm and the enemies were without. That is the whole point. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The last words are important: " So that 
" if it were necessary it is substantially charged that he was adhering 
" to the enemies without the realm." 

Mr. MORGAN To the enemies without the realm, but he himself was 
within the realm. My point is that is the proper construction of the 
statute, that the defendants must be within the realm at the time; that 
is obvious if the overt acts are within the realm. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN And the defence was that the enemy was without the 
102 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

realm. I think if that case is carefully studied it will appear to 
support our position ais regards the latter portion of that passage to 
which my attention was drawn just now. Mr. Justice Chamberlain goes 
on to say it is an offence not constituted by statute, but an offence at 
common law. As regards that point he does not say that it was an 
offence at common law to adhere to the King's enemies if the defendant 
as well as the enemies were without the realm, and that is the whole of 
our position. It was no doubt always an offence at common law to 
adhere to the King's enemies within the realm. The statute is abso- 
lutely declaratory on that point. The word " adhering" occurs in some 
of the old authorities before 1351; it was always an offence at common 
law to adhere to the King's enemies within the realm, probably within 
the dominions, certainly within those dominions which were Ireland 
they had the common law imported into them. That is quite a different 
proposition to saying that the common law took notice of offences com- 
mitted outside the King's dominions altogether, or even that they were 
offences at common law in the absence of statutory authority. I respect- 
fully submit that the considerations advanced yesterday by my learned 
friend, and those which, to the best of my poor ability, I have tried to 
advance this morning, are absolutely conclusive against this indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you remember one of the cases in which 
a person was indicted and convicted of treason without the realm, that is, 
in Ireland? I do not remember where it is, but I have seen it. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL O'Rouke's case and Perrot's case. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That isi the case. 

Mr. MORGAN I have looked up the case, but it is very badly reported 
in the State Trials, and I have not been able to find any authority on 
adhering to the King's enemies. The person, I believe, was charged for 
compassing and not adhering to the King's enemies within the realm. It 
has been held since Poyning's Act, since Henry VIII., that Ireland was 
part of the realm. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It depends on a different statute; it was 
held that was within the realm since Poyning's law. 

Mr. MORGAN If Perrot's case occurred, as I think it did, since 
Poyning's law, Ireland was part of the realm; if Perrot was charged with 
adhering to the King's enemy it is not inconsistent with our argument. 

The ATTORNEY- GEJNERAL May it please your lordship. It must, I 
think, be long since the great sages of the common law have been treated 
in such large numbers with so much disrespect in any Court of justice in 
this country, and certainly the assault which my two learned friends have 
directed at these great masters of the common law was by no means, as 
it seems to me, the fruit of caprice ; it was necessary to the bold contention 
which they proposed to lay before your lordship ; it was necessary that 
they should discover one method or other of criticising all these great 
authorities, household names in the history of our jurisprudence, because, 
by a singular accident, all of them were unanimously opposed for a long 
period of years to the contentions which my learned friends have been 
driven to put before your lordship in this matter. I do not think that 
my learned friends will dispute that they owed the inception of this 
contention and many of the arguments by which they have sought to 

103 



Sir Roger Casement. 



support it, to the advocate who made the same submissions in the case to 
which your lordships' attention has already been directed, The King v. 
Lynch. I propose, if I may, to devote the few observations with which I 
shall think it necessary to trouble your lordships, first to the law as I 
conceive it to have been at common law and before the statute of 
Edward III., and afterwards to the state of the law as that statute left the 
law, and then to consider shortly the effect of the statute of Henry VIII. 
upon the statute of Edward III. ; and to inform your lordships of some 
of the decisions which, contrary to the statement inadvertently made by my 
learned friend, Mr. Sullivan, have held that treason without the realm can 
be tried in this country. I may have imperfectly apprehended what my 
learned friend said, but I understood my learned friend to say yesterday 
that he knew of no case in which a person charged with treason without the 
realm had been made justiciable in this country. I think I shall be in a 
position to direct my learned friend's attention, and also your lordships' 
attention, to many such cases. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I did not understand Mr. Sullivan to contend 
that; I thought he said there were no cases which had in terms decided 
that these words in the statute 1351 were to be interpreted as they were 
being interpreted by the Crown in this indictment, that is, that adherence 
to the King's enemies without the realm was an offence. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If that was all that my learned friend said 
I should not quarrel with it. It is quite true that if you take the long 
list of cases in which this matter has been considered there has been no 
advocate, so far as I know, in the whole history of those cases who has 
ever been bold enough to* put forward this contention as to the meaning 
of the statute, though decisions of the Courts have, as I will show your 
lordships, proceeded many times upon the opposite view ; in no case since 
the statute has that contention ever been put forward by any advocate. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Till the case of The King v. Lynch. 

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL Till the case of The King v. Lynch. If I 
may make an observation as to the common law it is necessary, as my 
learned friend pointed out, that it should be borne in mind in considering 
these matters that the statute of Edward III. has been repeatedly and 
authoritatively stated to be declaratory of the common law of this country. 
Now, it is put in argument that the theory of the criminal law MI this 
country is, and has always been, that crime is local in its character, and that 
conclusion is well founded ; but it has always, as I hope to satisfy your 
lordships, been either stated or assumed when these matters have been 
carefully considered that the offence of treason was an exception to this 
general rule, and if one examines for a moment the conception upon which 
the law of treason depends, one sees at once the grounds upon which 
this inception has been admitted. The view taken by the law has always 
been that allegiance, that impalpable and almost indefinable idea which 
connects the subjects with the Sovereign, is carried by the subject 
wherever that subject goes and wherever the subject sojourns. It is 
a personal tie binding the subject to the Sovereign and providing certain 
legal consequences wherever the subject goes, and a moment's reflection 
will, I think, make it clear when one is dealing with matters of the 
gravity that are raised by the doctrine of high treason that it must have 
104 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

been impossible that the common law of this country could have excluded 
the conception that treason or acts of treason, whether compassing or 
adherence, which were committed without the realm I said, a moment's 
observation must make that plain when one is dealing with the affairs of a 
country, particularly of an insular Power, such as this country is. It is, I 
should have thought evident that, except in the case of actual invasion, 
traitorous acts, acts of treason, certainly acts of adherence to the King's 
enemies, were far more likely in the ordinary course to be committed 
without the realm than within the realm; in other words, the King's 
enemies in the more common and obvious cases of adherence, except in 
the cases of invasion, very rare as they are in history, are likely to be 
found not within the realm, but without the realm. It would indeed have 
been strange if the common law of this country had permitted a subject of 
this country, bound to the Sovereign by the personal tie of allegiance, to go 
to the country which for so many centuries was an enemy of this country, 
France, at the door of this realm adhering to the King's enemies, and then 
concede that although the personal tie of allegiance had subsisted during the 
periods during which these acts of adherence were committed, yet in the 
view of the criminal law of this country no violation had taken place 
of the law of treason as that law was understood at the time. It would, 
I submit, have been inconceivable had such a doctrine ever been held. 
I will show your lordships in a moment that not only has no high 
authority ever said that this offence was not recognised as an offence at 
common law, but that the whole trend of authority is in the opposite 
direction. 

Now, I come to make an observation upon the statute of Edward III., 
a statute as we have seen declaratory of the common law. My learned 
friends dealt with the statute of Edward III., if they will allow me to say so, 
in a. manner which was, I think, a little perfunctory, especially having regard 
to the elaboration of some other branches of their arguments. They 
assumed rather than argued that the statute of Edward III. had the meaning 
which they attempted to put upon it. I submit, on the other hand, to 
your lordships that the views which have been unanimously held by the 
great writers upon our criminal law as* to the effect of the statute of 
Edward III. are not only well founded, but they are the only views which 
can reasonably, if one considers the wording of the statute, be admitted 
or accepted. 

Will your lordships be so good as to look at the words which your 
lordships recollect are at page 1031 of Archbold? I ought perhaps to 
make this preliminary observation, that in dealing with a statute so ancient 
as this, couched in the language which is before your lordships, one does 
not always adopt all the same standards of grammatical construction 
which one applies to statutes of King George V. These are the words, 
" If a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm or be 
"adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and 
comfort in the realm or elsewhere, and therefore be probably attainted 
" of open deed by the people of their condition." Those are the 
material words. The submission which I make is that the views of those 
who have always held that these words contemplated and covered the 
offence of adherence without the realm are well founded, and, as I have 

105 



Sir Roger Casement. 



said, are not only reasonable, but are almost the necessary construction of 
the words. How, then, ought the words to be read? They ought, in the 
submission of the Crown, to be read exactly as if before the word 
"' giving" and after the word "realm," in the phrase " giving to them 
' aid and comfort in the realm," there were brackets, that those words, 
n other words, were in brackets. Let it be so read, " If a man do levy 
1 war against our Lord the King in his realm or be adherent to the King's 
' enemies in his realm (giving to them aid and comfort in the realm) or 
' elsewhere." With submission, that is not only a probable construction, 
but it is by far the most reasonable construction that can be put upon 
those words. You have here the use of the phrase, " be adherent to the 
" King's enemies in his realm," and then the need is felt by the draughts- 
man, such is the suggestion I make, to give some explanation or some 
enlargement of the phrase which is being used, the phrase "be adherent 
" to the King's enemies," and he interpolates the phrase " giving to them 
" aid and comfort in the realm," making the words " or elsewhere" an 
addition to the phrase " be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm." 
I have ventured to submit to your lordships that was not only a reasonable 
construction, it is really, if one construes the statute as a whole in the 
light of the general consideration which I venture to lay before your lord- 
ships on the common law before the statute, a necessary construction. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Attorney, would you assent to this view 
of the construction, taking the words "or elsewhere," may they not 
govern both the adhering to the King's enemies within the realm or 
elsewhere, and also giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or 
elsewhere 1 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There are two possible views; that is one 
of them, and the one I have indicated to your lordships is the other. The 
conclusion which follows from either of those views has been variously 
supported, one or the other, by various writers. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It seems a little difficult to understand why 
one should limit giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies in the 
realm. I do not know why it should not be equally an offence without the 
realm when in an island in all probability the King's enemies will mostly 
be found without the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That is what I was going to ask. Assuming 
that, "elsewhere" might govern both. 

The ATTORNEY-GEJNERAL Your lordship suggested that yesterday. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I do not see why the statute should limit the 
giving of aid and comfort in the realm when it may extend, according to 
your submission, to adhesion outside the realm. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICES That seems to me to get added force if one 
bears in mind and recollect that the words " giving to them aid and 
"comfort" are really a parenthesis, and describing what is meant by 
adhering to the King's enemies. If you. read it in that way it would 
seem to me that the words must necessarily govern both adherence and the 
descriptive words; you are dealing with the same offence. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. It may be from that point of view 
it covers the whole phrase, including the levying of war. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is also possible. 
106 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I do not mind which of those views is taken. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGB The quotation from Mr. Justice Willes merely 
leaves that out, and makes it govern the adherence. 

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL Yes. As to the position in law which 
followed upon the passing of the statute of Edward III., it seems to me the 
passage quoted from Hawkins I apologise to my learned friend for 
mentioning such as authority is very apposite. He says on page 306, 
under " Indictment," " It seems to have been a great doubt before the 
" making of the statute of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, in what manner and 
" in what place high treason done out of the realm was to be tried. For 
" some seem to have holden that it was triable only upon an appeal before 
" the constable and marshal; others that it might be tried upon an indiot- 
' ( ment, laying the offence in any county where the King pleased ; . and 
1 ' others that it was triable by way of indictment in that county only 
"wherein the offender had lands; but surely it cannot reasonably be 
" doubted but that it was triable some way or other. 77 I think my 
learned friend called this the cry of despair, " for it cannot be imagined 
" that an offence of such dangerous consequence, and expressly within the 
"purview of 25 Edward III., should be wholly dispunishable, as it must 
" have been if it were DO way triable." 

As I understand the significance of this passage, it is very great, 
because between the statute of Edward III. and the statute of Henry VIII. 
the learned author, who had been giving great attention to these matters, 
says that there were great doubts. But what did the doubts relate to? 
Did the doubts relate to the question whether high treason done out 
of the realm was an offence? He does not enumerate that as among the 
many grounds of doubts he thinks it worth while to call attention to. The 
doubts were as to in what manner and detail high treason done out of the 
realm was to be tried. He gives various views that had been held by 
various authorities. " For some seem to have holden that it was triable 
' ' only upon an appeal before the constable and marshal ; others that it 
" might be tried upon an indictment, laying the offence in any county 
" where the King pleased " that is, leaving the King to choose the venue 
where the offender had lands. He states in weighty language his 
conclusion, "That it was triable some way or other; for it cannot be 
"imagined that an offence of such dangerous consequence, and expressly 
" within the purview of 25 Edward III., should be wholly dispunishable." 
So that the high authority of Hawkins says again, in the plainest possible 
way, in this statement, which is not in the least an answer, but a positive 
conclusion, that high treason done out of the realm is expressly within 
the purview of 25 Edward III. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is there any authority of which you have 
cognisance which says that if high treason is committed without the 
realm it is not an offence at common law ? 

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL No, and I may boldly say there is none. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I know of none. Even in the case in 2 
Dyer, to which reference is made, it was assumed that the doing of the 
act is an offence. All that it does is to say it is not triable by the 
course of the common law. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. The emphasis is on the word 
" triable " in that connection. I will come to the case in Dyer later. 

107 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Before you leave that, it may be the statute 
does not deal with specific treason by adherence, there may be treason 
outside the particular one which was an offence, although there was no 
means of trying it ; he is not dealing with the particular case of adherence 
there. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is perfectly true. It might have been 
expected, I submit, that if in making this grave statement that the 
offence was expressly within the purview of 25 Edward III., he wanted to 
put forward the view that there was 1 a distinction to be drawn between 
certain treasons 1 under the Act, he would have done so. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I think that is quite a fair comment. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL And such' being the case, namely, that doubts 
had arisen in the language of Hawkins, as to what the proper method of 
trying these admitted offences was, the statute of Henry VIII. wasi passed; 
and I may remind your lordships, as possibly an additional reason why 
that statute should have been thought necessary, that there had been a 
great increase in the number of constructive treasons* in the reign of 
King Henry VIII., all kinds of dynastic considerations intervened, and 
doubt was felt as to the proper method of dealing with them. That is at 
page 1032 of Archbold. The note is, " Venue for treasons committed 
" abroad." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The title is not in Archbold, but it is " An 
" Act concerning the trial of treasons committed out of the King's 
" Majesty's dominions 1 ." 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, it is purely machinery. " Forasmuch 
" as some doubts and questions have been moved, that certain kinds 
" of treasons, misprisdons, and concealments of treason done, perpetrated, 
" or committed out of the King's Majesty's realm of England cannot, 
" by the common laws of this realm be inquired of, heard, and deter- 
" mined within this his said realm of England; for a plain remedy, 
" order, and declaration therein to be had and made, be it enacted by 
" authority of this present Parliament that all manner of offences being 
" already made, declared, or hereafter to be made or declared, by any 
"of the laws and statutes of this realm, to be treasons, misprisionsi of 
" treasons, or concealments of treasons, and done, perpetrated, or com- 
" mitted, or hereafter to be done, perpetrated, or committed, by any 
" person or persons out of this realm of England, shall be from henceforth 
" inquired of, heard, and determined before the King's justices of his 
" Bench for pleas to be holden before himself, by good and lawful men 
" of the same shire where the said Bench shall sit and be kept, or else 
"before such commissioners and in such shire of the realm as shall be 
" assigned by the King's Majesty's commission, and by good and lawful 
" men of the same shire, in like manner and form to all intents and 
" purposes as if any such treasons, inisprisions of treasons, or concealments 
" of treasons had been done, perpetrated, and committed within the same 
"shire where they shall be so inquired of, heard, and determined as is 
" aforesaid." It is worthy of notice, perhaps, that the form of the 
statute supports the view which, as I have said, all the great authorities 
over so long a period of time have taken, as to its content and scope, 
because it purposes' to be a declaration for the purpose of relieving doubts 
108 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

as to the precis method in which these crimes universally conceded to be 
triable somehow ought to be dealt with. 

The LOED CHIEF JUSTICE So far a one can follow from the reference 
to the cases cited yesterday and to-day the doubts that have arisen were 
all as to the mode of the trial and the venue. 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No doubt, so far as I can follow, is any- 
where expressed as to the act being an offence, and an offence punishable 
according to the law of England; the only question was, if you had got 
the person, where were you to try him? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have given some attention to this matter, 
and I have had the assistance of my learned friends, who are both 
industrious and persevering in these matters, and I think I may say there 
is no past case that any of us know in the books in which any doubt 
whatever has been thrown upon the view that it was an offence ; I know of 
none, and I do not think my learned friends are in a position to call 
attention to any. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The words in Dyer, the only words that 
are relied upon, seem to point just the other way. These are the words 
relied upon, " Because no offence of treason committed out of the realm 
" was triable here by the course of the common law, therefore this statute 
1 ' enlarges the power and authority of the trials of the realm in this 
" point/' It seems that it isi an offence to commit treason without the 
realm, but it says the difficulty is, according to the course of common 
law, where is the offence to be tried. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is the same view that Hawkins takes. 
It is worth noticing about the case in Dyer, the charge in question, as I 
understand the very short report, is contained in a memorandum which is 
not, I think, the conclusion of the judges, because the conclusion is given 
below. The conclusion, I think, begins about seven lines from the 
bottom of the page, " And for the cause above, the judges, Sir John 
" Baker and Hare, Master of the Rolls, were assembled, and they thought 
" as above, and by the words 1 above, according to the order and course 
" of the common law, it shall be intended that the trial shall be in the 
" county where the indictment is " I rather think the earlier part is the 
case put before them, and the conclusion arrived at is set out in the last 
six lines. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is not unimportant to observe how it 
came before them. There was the statute of 35 Henry VIII., then came 
the statute of 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, and Philip and Mary having said 
a certain thing, "that all trials hereafter to be had, awarded, or made 
" for any .treason shall be had and used only according to the due order 
" and course of the common laws of this realm, and not otherwise/' had 
that statute of Philip and Mary in any way repealed or modified the effect 
of 35 Henry VIII. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That was the whole point. 
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That was the whole point they were 
discussing? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY The resolution was that trial should be in the 

109 



Sir Roger Casement. 



county where the indictment was; that was the only resolution that was 
come to. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is quite true. I do not propose to 
say anything more about that now. It might be useful to call your 
lordships' attention to the various oases I think I can do it compendiously 
some of them of considerable antiquity, some more recent, in which the 
view of the statute which I am endeavouring to press upon your lordships 
has been accepted and acted upon in one way or other. There was a 
case of William de Weston, which is reported in 1 Richard II., Roll of 
Parliament, volume iii., pages 10 to 12. In that case it was found by 
Parliament, as recorded on the roll, that William, having undertaken to 
keep safely the Castle of Outkrewyk, in Flanders, without any duress or 
lack of victuals, wickedly delivered and surrendered it to the King's 
enemies by his own default alone, against all right and reason, and 
against his allegiance and undertaking. There is the resolution of Par- 
liament that he was sentenced to be drawn and hanged. 

Then there is the case of John de Gomenys, who was sentenced for 
delivering up the Castle of Ardes. Now, it was held, a little strange to 
say, that as he was a gentleman, and had served Edward III., he was not a 
liege man of Richard II., he was only to be beheaded. Now the question 
arose, in reference to both those matters, whether the charge was treason. 
Both the acts, and they would have been acts of adherence in surrendering 
the castles if they were treason at all, were committed in Flanders. Now, 
Hale has considered his case in his Pleas of the Crown at pagesi 167 and 
168, and in the second paragraph of 167 he says, " If an Englishman 
' ' during war between the Kings of England and France be taken by the 
"French, and there swear fealty to the King of France, if it be done 
" voluntarily, it is an adhering to the King's enemies; but if it be done 
" for fear of his life, and that he returns, as soon as he might, to the 
" allegiance of the Crown of England, this is not an adherence to the 
"King's enemies within this Act." Then in the next paragraph, "If 
"a captain or other officer, that hath the custody of any of the King's 
" castles or garrisons, shall treacherously, by combination with the King's 
"enemies or by bribery or for reward, deliver them up, this is adherence 
"to the King's enemies. This was the case of William Weston for 
' ' delivering up the Castle of Oughtrewicke and John de Gomenys for 
" delivering up the Castle of Ardes, in France, both which were impeached 
" by the Commons, and had judgment of the Lords in Parliament, 
" Rot. Par. 1 R. 2, p. 40, namely, William Weston to be drawn 
" and hanged, but execution was respited." Then it gives Gomenys' 
judgment, and says, " The execution was respited." Then the learned 
author adds this note, which is very much in point, ' ' And note, though 
" the charge was treason, and possibly the proofs might probably amount to 
" it, and Walsingham, sub anno, 1 R. 2, tell us it was done by treason ; 
" yet the reason expressed in the judgment against Weston is only " then 
he puts it in Norman French, on the ground of surrender. 

Then it goes on. " The truth is if it were delivered up by bribery 

" or treachery it might be treason, but if delivered up upon cowardice or 

" imprudence without any treachery, though it were an offence against the 

" laws of war, and the party subject to a sentence of death by martial law, 

110 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

"as it once happened in a case of the like nature in the late times of 
" trouble, yet it is not treason by the common law, unless it was done 
" by treachery." The learned author took those two cases on the whole 
as conclusive that the matter was dealt with under the head of treason, 
and is of opinion that if it was delivered up not by cowardice but from 
treachery it might properly be dealt with as treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE HOBRIDGB And that is, at the earlier portion of the 
passage, specially stated to be adhering to the King's- enemies. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am indebted to your lordship ; in terms 
it is so stated. I have other cases, but the most useful to refer to now 
is Lord Wentworth's case, a case reported in the 4 State Trials at 
page 314. In this case the indictment has been found, and is available 
for the purpose of consideration. The indictment charges and sets forth 
that Lord Wentworth, Edward Grimston, and Ralph Chamberlain were 
indicted jointly with others for that occupying and exercising their 
aforesaid several offices at Calais in parts beyond the seas, on 20th 
December they traitorously were adhering, aiding, and comforting, and 
procuring to Henry, King of the French, the public enemy of the said 
King and Queen and of this realm of England, in order to traitorously 
deprive the said King and Queen from their possession of the said town of 
Calais and the castle of the same, and deliver the same into the hands 
and possession of the said Henry, now King of the French. As regards 
Lord Wentworth the indictment was removed into the House of Lords, 
where he was found not guilty. Grimston was tried before Commissioners, 
which, as your lordships will recollect, is another alternative method of 
trial, and found not guilty. Chamberlain was tried before the same 
Commission, found guilty, and executed. That was a case of treason 
without the realm, in Calais. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What was the date of that? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 1558. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That was when Calais was a portion of the 
King's dominions, but it was not within the realm. Calais was ceded in 
the time of Queen Mary. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Calais was represented in Parliament as late as 
James I. Parliament purported to legislate with regard to a place outside 
of the realm, up to the time of James I. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There was a conviction only in one case, 
the case of Ralph Chamberlain. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That could be explained, could it not, without 
praying in aid the doctrine required for this case. The conviction on 
that indictment may have been perfectly right because, if the offence was 
committed at Calais in the circumstances, it was not necessarily the 
special treason of adhering to the King's enemies without the realm. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It was not necessarily, but the facts, so far 
as they are set out, I should have thought rendered the conclusion a 
probable one that it was that part of the statute that was considered. 
They were " Aiding and comforting and procuring," so the indictment 
says, "to Henry, King of the French ... in order to traitorously 
*' deprive the said King and Queen from their possession of the said 

111 



Sir Roger Casement. 



" town of Calais." I observe- from the full indictment that it does treat 
Calais in that case as part of the King's dominions ; but there are so many 
other authorities in which it does not arise that I will not trouble your 
lordships further with that case. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is not worth pursuing. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No. Your lordship asked some questions 
about some cases which dealt with the case of Ireland. My learned 
friend, Mr. Sullivan, informed your lordship of the case of O'Rurke, which 
was tried in 1591, reported in 4 State Trials at page 708. The indict- 
ment charges O'Rurke " as a false traitor against the Lady Elizabeth, Queen 
" of England, France, and Ireland, at Dromhere, in the realm of the said 
''Lady, the Queen of Ireland, in parts beyond the sea, traitorously con- 
Aspired and compassed the death of the Queen," and then it sets out 
various overt acts and charges, " adherence to the Queen's enemies in 
" the realm of Ireland in parts beyond the seas." Then in another part 
it charges " That the Bishop of Rome and Philip, King of Spain, had 
"prepared a great army hostilely to invade this realm of England," and 
ihat " O'Rurke traitorously received, fed, and comforted, and aided 
" very many of the aforesaid Spaniards, enemies of our said Lady the 
" Queen, arriving in certain ships in the said realm of Ireland." In the 
third place it charged " That O'Rurke, in the realm of Ireland in parts 
"beyond the seas, traitorously aided and comforted certain rebels and 
" traitors of the realm of Ireland." The other counts in the indictment I 
do not think are very material to the matters under consideration here. 
There the judgment of the Court was that he had been guilty of treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Did not the indictment lay the act done in 
Ireland as being in the realm of the Queen? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It was charged a being outside the realm 
of England ; it was charged a being within the realm of Ireland. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It says " Our Lady the Queen." 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL "Lady the Queen of Ireland"; but it was 
treated as being outside the realm of England. Then, my lords, the 
next is Perrot's case, tried in 1592, reported in 4 State Trials at page 708. 
In that case we also have the indictment. The indictment charged 
" That Perrot, late Deputy of the Lady the Queen, in her realm of Ireland 
" in parts beyond seas, as a false traitor against the Queen at Dublin, in 
"the said realm of the said Lady the Queen of Ireland, compassed the 
" Queen's death, and to bring about the overthrow of the Commonwealth 
"of the realms of England and Ireland," and "That the Pope and the 
" King of Spain had prepared an army to invade the realm of England, 
" and that Perrot, in the realm of Ireland, wrote traitorous letters inciting 
"the King of Spain to perform his malicious purpose." That was 
similarly dealt with. Those cases are open to the comment which Mr. 
Justice Horridge has made. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What is your reference to those cases in 
1591 and 1592; is it Hargreaves? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think it is Hargreaves. 

Then, my lords, the next case I ask attention to is that of Lords 
Middleton and Castlemaine, John Stafford, and Others, tried in the year 
1695. In that case we have the indictment. That is a very clear case. 
112 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

It charges that they were indicted as false traitors, for " That they, 
"without this realm of England, in France, in parts beyond sea, 
' ' traitorously adhered to the King's enemies in the same war, and 
"traitorously assembled and united themselves to and amongst the said 
"enemies carrying on war against the King, and comforted, aided, and 
" supported the said enemies contrary to their allegiance." Most of the 
persons indicted were outlawed, including Stafford. He subsequently 
surrendered, and pleaded in bar some technical point and produced letters 
of pardon, but that does not affect the case. It was a clear case of a 
charge of adhering to the King's enemies without the realm, in France. It 
was a charge of treason, and there was a conviction. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Where is that reported? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is not reported. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have only got the indictment 1 

The ATTORNET-GENERAL I have the indictment from the Records. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Do you know by whom it was tried? 

Mr. SULLIVAN They did not come within the realm to stand their 
trial, and that is why they were outlawed, as your lordships might presume. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It looks rather like it. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That, again, throws a light on the question 
of whether they committed an offence. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes, the point is whether it was an offence. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY How could they be outlawed unless they had 
committed an offence? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is not the point. My lord, Mr. Justice Horridge 
asked where the trial took place, and what happened at the trial. I 
was answering him that there was no trial because they did not appear to 
stand their trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That was in answer to me, but you have not 
given an answer to my brother Avory. You have not answered whether 
or not that does not involve a crime. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Of course, they purported to be outlawed for a crime, 
but what I am pointing out is that there was no trial. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You can say it is not to be taken as a 
judgment, because they were not heard. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is all. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE They did not come here and submit them- 
selves to the jurisdiction? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Still it shows that there was a conviction. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE And it shows what the view of the law then 
was in 1695. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Then, my lord, the next case I desire to call 
attention to is the Duke of Wharton's case in 1729. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is that the Spanish case? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, my lord, in Spain. In that case, too, 
we have the indictment. The indictment charged "That a war was 
"being carried on between Philip and George I., the former being an 
"enemy of the said King," and "The Duke of Wharton adhered to the 
" King's enemies in foreign parts, and beyond the sea without this realm 
i 113 



Sir Roger Casement. 

" of Great Britain, to wit, in the realm of Spain, alleging as an overt act 
" that he joined and united himself to the army of Philip, prosecuting the 
"war against King George and attacking Gibraltar." Your lordships 
will notice in this case that both the overt act and the enemies were 
without the realm. In this case also the sentence was one of outlawry, 
and here, again, the Duke of Wharton did not enter an appearance. 

I have the indictment here if I might read two passages from it. It 
charges that " Philip, Duke of Wharton, late of Westminster, in the 
"county of Middlesex, being a subject of the said Lord the late King, 
" well knowing the premises, not having the fear of God in his heart, nor 
" pondering the duty of his allegiance, but moved and seduced by 
" instigation of the devil as a false traitor against the said Lord, the 
" late King, his Sovereign, true natural and undoubted Lord, utterly 
"withdrawing the hearty love and due obedience, fidelity, and allegiance 
" which true and faithful subjects of the said Lord, the late King, were of 
" right bound to bear towards the said Lord, the late King, on the first 
" day of May, in the thirteenth year of the reign of the said Lord, the 
" late King, and at divers other days and times, as well before as 
" afterwards, in foreign parts and beyond sea without his realm of Great 
"Britain, to wit, in the realm of Spain, by force of arms, &c., falsely, 
" maliciously, knowingly, devilishly and treasonably was adherent, 
" aiding, and assistant to the same Philip, King of Spain." Then near 
the end of the indictment there come the following words: "At which 
" same Wednesday next after the Quinzaine of Easter, before the said 
" Lord the King, that now is at Westminster, the Sheriff of the county of 
" Middlesex aforesaid, returned the aforesaid writ of causing to put in 
" exigent to him directed thus endorsed By virtue of this writ to me 
" directed at my county (Court) of Middlesex, holden for the county of 
" Middlesex aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrewes Holborne, in that 
" county aforesaid, on Thursday, to wit, the twelfth day of December, 
" in the same year, within written, the within named Philip, Duke of 
" Wharton, was first put in exigent, and did not appear." So that under 
the King's writ pursuant to the statute the trial was ordered at the 
Court as specified in the way I have just read. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He did not appear. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL He did not appear, and was thereupon 
outlawed. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That seems to have happened in many of 
these cases. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, naturally, unless they happen to be 
caught here. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you notice in that case whether the 
overt acts were without the realm? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, I think they were all. I will ask one 
of my learned friends to look it up. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The conviction would have been quite good 
if there was only one overt act within the realm. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, I think all the overt acts and all the 
enemies were without the realm. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Perhaps Mr. Bodkin will look and tell us. 
114 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If your lordship pleases. I am told that 
all the acts were outside the realm, as my recollection was, and that they 
were all concerned with a projected attack on Gibraltar. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE All the acts done by Philip, Duke of 
Wharton, were done without the realm. 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

Then, my lords, the next case is one of some interest and importance, 
the case of William Cundell. The only report I have of that ease is in 
4 Newgate Calendar. We have the indictment, but there is a report. 
William Cundell was indicted for adhering to the King's enemies in the 
Isle of France, and, as I have said, the Crown has a record of the case 
and a copy of the indictment. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE What is the date? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 1812. It is reported in volume iv., 
Newgate Calendar, at page 62. I will read the short facts. " In 1808 
" a number of British sailors and mariners were confined as prisoners of 
" war in the Isle of France. The prison being much crowded, was 
" greatly incommoded with dirt and vermin, and there being no way of 
" escaping from such inconvenience but that of desertion, every art was 
practised by their keepers to induce the unhappy prisoners to enter 
the French service. Fifty men, among whom were Cundell and Smith, 
had not virtue enough to resist the temptations on one hand, and the 
hope of escaping from distress and filth on the other. They forgot 
their country and allegiance, and put on the enemy's uniform, acting 
as sentinels over those who were so recently their companions in 
captivity. These traitors continued to do duty with the French until 
the surrender of the island to the British forces, when C'undell and Smith 
with ten others positively refused to accompany the enemy, and threw 
l< themselves upon the mercy of their country, having immediately 
11 surrendered to the English, while the thirty-eight others marched off to 
"old France. These culprits were now transmitted to England, and a 
" special commission was issued for their trial, which took place at the 
" Surrey Court-house, February 6th, 1812. Cundell, Smith, and five 
" others were found guilty of adhering to His Majesty's enemies, when the 
" Attorney-General stated that he thought the ends of justice obtained, 
"and that he would not press the conviction of the remaining five, who 
"were discharged, not for any want of proof of their guilt, but through 
" the clemency of the Government." 

Then there is the speech of the Attorney-General, which I do not think 
I need read. The Lord Chief Baron then proceeded to pass sentence, and 
there was sentence in the ordinary way, which your lordships are familiar 
with. Then " The prisoners were then reconducted to their cells. Almost 
"every individual in Court was dissolved in tears during the melancholy 
" scene. On Monday morning, the 16th March, 1812, William Cundell 
" and John Smith, pursuant to their sentence, were hung." That is a 
very clear case. The indictment, as I have said, and the record show 
that the adherence to the King's enemies was without the realm. There 
was a formal trial, and in their presence they were convicted, and 
executed. All the overt acts there were in the Isle of France. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I do not know where the Isle of France was. 

115 



Sir Roger Casement. 



The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think it was in Mauritius. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGB And it was owned by France. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, a French colony. The war, of course, 
was between the French Government and ourselves. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE It obviously was in their possession by the 
statement of the facts. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is given as an authority in Archbold, at 
page 1050, not exactly on this point, but as an illustration of an overt act. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I do not see why it is not an authority. It is 
given in fact on this point, because it says, " The words of the Treason 
'' Act, 1351, are ' or be adherent to the enemies of our Lord the King in 
" ' his realm, giving to them aid or comfort in the realm or elsewhere.' The 
" offence defined by these words is ' adhering to the King's enemies within 
1 the land or without, and declaring the same by some overt act.' ; The 
three cases which are nearest are Lord Middleton and Others, The Duke 
of Wharton, and Cundell. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, those, it is submitted, are exactly in 
point, and, of course, the earlier cases also. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The advantage of Cundell is that not only 
is it reported on the facts, so that one can see it in the Calendar, but also 
there was a trial. 

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL Yes. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The other cases are cases of outlawry. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. My lords, the fact that there are not 
a larger number of authorities in which the matter has been specially dealt 
with is, of course, due to the obvious consideration that if people have 
committed acts of this kind without the realm, they are not in the habit 
of returning to the realm if they can help it so long as the Power against 
which they conspire is ruling there. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Have you looked at all at paragraph 13 of 
the case of Mulcahy in the House of Lords? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have sent for that particular volume. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What puzzles one is that Mr. Justice Willes, 
in giving the opinion of the judges, certainly uses language which, if 
correctly reported in inverted commas, seems to be citing with approval 
the judgment in O'Erierfs catse. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Your lordship means the passage in which 
he says it is treason if the man is adhering to the King's enemies in his 
realm or elsewhere? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. The importance of it is that for the 
purpose of declaring the law he leaves out the words which have given 
rise to so much discussion here, " giving them aid and comfort." 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, just as Lord Hale did. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If that is right, it brings down to the year 
1868 the opinion of the judges of the King's Bench delivered by Mr. 
Justice Willes to the House of Lords in answer to the summons, and that 
opinion was approved by the House of Lords, Lord Cairns as Chancellor. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

116 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Although it was not necessary for the 
decision Mr. Sullivan was quite right in saying it is obiter it is a very 
high expression of judicial authority which we cannot brush aside as mere 
speculation. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My learned friend dwelt rather more on the 
fact that this view was obiter than on the fact that the case in Dyer was 
obiter. 

My lords, if I may I will now shortly direct attention to the dicta of 
some of the great authorities upon our common law. Some have already 
been mentioned. I will do it with as much economy of time as I can. 
In Coke's Third Institute, page 63, the enumeration of treason by the 
learned author contains the following dictum: " The fourth is adhering 
" to the King's enemies within the realm or without, and declaring the 
" same by some overt act." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The reference given in Archbold to that 
passage is pages 10 and 11. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have the book before me. " Adhering is 
"here explained, viz., in giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies 
"within the realm or without; delivery or surrender of the King's castles 
"or forts by the King's captain thereof to the King's enemies within the 
"realm or without for reward, &o., is adhering to the King's enemies, 
"and consequently treason declared by this Act." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If it is not inconvenient to you, Mr. 
Attorney, would you refer us to Fitzherbert's Abridgment I think it is 
5 Richard II. There is a report there of a trial which we have not got. I 
interpose because we do not think it necessary to trouble you to read 
again what is said in Coke's Institute unless there are other passages you 
wish to refer to. We got it all before us yesterday. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If your lordship pleases. I find it a little 
difficult to translate the report of the case, and for some reason which I 
need not trouble to state it was not found possible last night to get a 
translator, but I think I understand enough of it to show that there must 
have been some misapprehension in the mind of my learned friend in the 
account he gave your lordships of it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I forget what particular case it is cited in. 
It is cited in one of the passages read to us yesterday. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGB I think it is Hale. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There is a reference in a side note in Hale at 
page 169. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is the particular passage to which atten- 
tion was called which I think is the strongest, and which says that at 
common law the offender might have been indicted in any county of 
England if he committed treason abroad. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. I did not select it as among the number 
of authorities which I cited to the Court. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is rather difficult to understand. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is difficult to understand. Not only that, 
but the dictum in question which is quoted is a dictum not proceeding 
from the Court, but from the representative of the Crown ; and without 
wishing to underrate the authority of such a statement it did not seem to 
me to be of the same authority as a decision of the judges. 

117 



Sir Roger Casement. 



The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No, except that the representative of the 
Crown, the King's Attorney, who was arguing, treated it as a matter 
beyond all question. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL He did. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That was the only point. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is quite true. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You read a few lines of it to us yesterday. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. I am reading from the translation, but 
I can refer your lordships to the passage. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is it under " Trial " in Fitzherbert 1 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. What he says is this, according to the 
translation we have had prepared, " If a man be adherent to the King's 
" enemies in France his land is forfeitable and his adherence shall be tried 
" where his land is, as has been oftentimes done in respect of the adherence 
"to the King's enemies in Scotland." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is the passage I have before me. I 
follow the translation much better since you have read it to me in English, 
but I can make out that that is what it is. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I rather understood my learned friend, Mr. 
Sullivan, who has evidently paid great attention and research to these 
matters, to suggest that this case 

Mr. SULLIVAN I did not cite the case at all. By mistake I went to 
the Parliamentary Rules. It is given in Coke under " Catalogue of Par- 
" liamentary Rules/' and I went to the Rules and forgot Fitzherbert. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a wrong reference. We did not under- 
stand about Cambridge being without the realm. It seems clear now that 
this is the authority of the King's Attorney. It is not a judgment. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No, that is quite true. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That was cited in support of the proposition 
that at common law the offender might have been indicted in any county 
of England, especially where his lands lie. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. That is what the Attorney said for 
what it was worth. The case itself refers to the Cardinal of Rome as far as 
I understand it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It seems to me to treat the law as beyond 
question. That is the point of it. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is a very learned argument to be 
found in one of these cases by Sir John Campbell when he was Attorney- 
General of the Crown, in which he went through a number of authorities 
with reference to treason ; not the particular case we have before us to-day 
about adhering to the King 7 enemies. You do find, and no doubt you 
will continue to find, particularly with the advantage the Attorney- 
General has in reference to the records and Crown documents, statements 
as to what happened which are of great use. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The only other authority I know you 
will give us any additional ones if you think there are any is East's Pleas 
of the Crown. There is a short reference to it there. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 
118 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The reference I have found is in volume 1 at 
page 80. " Englishmen living in a foreign country at the time of a rupture 
" with us, and continuing there afterwards, are not on that account 
"adherents to the King's enemies unless they voluntarily swear fealty to 
" them or actually assist them in the war; or, at least, unless they refuse 
" to return home," and then it goes on to deal with something else. He 
treats that as being an offence of adherence to the King's enemies. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. At page 78 your lordships will find 
this passage " In considering what shall be deemed an adherence to the 
" King's enemies, much of what has been already said under the head of 
" levying war is equally applicable. Those other species of aid or comfort, 
"in the words of the statute, which, when given to a rebel within the 
"realm, would make the subject guilty of levying war; if given to an 
" enemy, whether within or without the realm, will make the party guilty of 
" adhering to the King's enemies, though in the case of giving aid to 
" enemies within the realm a subject might, in some instances, be brought 
" within both branches of the Act." " Whether within or without the 
" realm" is very positive language. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The only comment to be made upon that is 
this. I had noticed it, but I thought it did not advance us in the argument, 
because the aid may be given to the enemy without the realm, the actual 
adherence being within the realm. That is the point Mr. Sullivan made 
yesterday. It is possible. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is a possible construction. I should 
have thought when it spoke of aid and comfort being given to an enemy 
within or without the realm it was thinking of aid or comfort which 
makes up adherence. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The passage to which I called attention, 
which follows upon that, seems to make the meaning clear, and I think 
does give effect to your construction of those words. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think it does. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE And he gives the instance: supposing an 
Englishman abroad, when we go to war with France, voluntarily swears 
fealty to the French King, that becomes adhering to the King's enemies 
without the realm and is. the offence of treason. There is no doubt the whole 
of the act is done outside the realm. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE^ It makes it quite plain. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The two passages taken together no 
doubt do. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do not think there is anything in Foster's 
Discourses of the Law of Treason on this point. I have looked at it 
with some care. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No, I do not think there is. Now, my 
lords, there are one or two other references I might give to make the 
matter quite plain. The first is Alexander Luders on High Treason. 
At page 12 the learned author says : " The meaning of the words ' to levy 
" ' war against the King in his realm, to adhere to his enemies, and 
" ' assist them within the realm or elsewhere,' must necessarily be the 
" same in this Act that is in other contemporary instruments or writings." 

119 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Then at page 13 he says: "It ie reasonable to infer that the war for- 
(e bidden to be levied within the realm was the same kind of war as 
" might have been levied without the realm, and that the enemies not 
" to be adhered to were such enemies as were capable of levying such 
" war, and of being assisted out of the realm as well as within it." 

Then another work of authority is Holbourne's Readings, 1681, at 
pages 12 and 13. He is dealing with the various heads of treason, and 
he says: " The fourth part is to adhere to the King's enemies. Aiding 
lt the enemies within or without, is an aiding of those that come into the 
"land or of those who are without. Aiding is by sending them aid, as 
" of victuals or of weapons and the like, by giving them counsel, or by 
" other ways, whereby they may receive strength or comfort from him." 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. The same observation applies to 
that as to several of them! You may aid and comfort the King's 
enemies without the realm by an act which you do within the realm, 
and in order to come within the proposition we are now discussing, you 
must get both the act of adherence by the person and also the aid to the 
enemy without the realm, must you not? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think that is so. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is the difficulty of some of these 
passages. For example, Bending a letter giving information to the 
enemy would be to aid the enemy without the realm, but the act is done 
within the realm. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. It may be that in some of these dicta 
the language might cover one or the other. 

I think I have now referred your lordships to the authorities as far 
as they are known to me. My submission ie that the doctrine of the 
common law has treated acts of adherence without the realm as being 
treason; that the meaning of the statute of King Edward III. is not 
ambiguous, but that it also treats adherence without the realm as fall- 
ing under one of the heads of treason ; that no controversy has ever been 
raised which would tend to show whether such an act, that is to say, 
adherence without the realm, was triable in this country or not that 
it was not an offence; that it has never been contended in any text- 
book or in any Court of law from the time when the statute of King 
Edward III. was passed to the present day, as far as I am aware, with 
one possible exception, that whether triable or not, adherence without 
the realm was an offence, and the offence of treason; that the statute of 
Henry VIII. which dealt with procedure denned clearly the circum- 
stances under which such treason should be justiciable in this country; 
and that the whole current of opinion amongst those who have been 
treated as authorities upon these matters is in one direction when they 
construe the statute of King Edward III. and the common law before 
it; and whether one takes the great authorities who have written upon 
the common law of England, or whether one takes the opinion of all the 
judges carrying on a long and most impressive weight of judicial and 
other opinion from the earliest times till the year 1868, it is impossible 
to resist the conclusion that an act of adherence to the King's enemies 
without the realm was and is justiciable in the Courts of this country. 
120 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

My lords, I have one observation to make in conclusion. I have 
indicated that the matter was much discussed in The King v. Lynch. 
The official report in the Law Reports hardly illustrates the extent to 
which the matter was discussed, but it was presented with tsome con- 
siderable weight of argument to the Court, and an answer not without 
elaboration was made by the then Attorney-General, and it was dealt with, 
or pronounced upon by the Court; and it is certainly a circumstance 
which ought to be borne in mind that the conviction itself in The King 
v. Lynch, had this doctrine been well founded, would have been wrong. 
It is an extremely recent authority, establishing, as I have isaid, that 
the whole trend and weight of judicial and other authority has been in 
the same direction. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The only difficulty is that in Lynch' s case, 
notwithstanding that there was a learned and somewhat elaborate argument, 
the Court pronounced no judgment upon it, but proceeded to deal with the 
case as if the argument advanced on behalf of the defence was ill founded, 
otherwise the summing up of the learned Chief Justice and the convic- 
tion must have been wrong. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think one cannot resist the conclusion, 
when one notices in what a cavalier manner, if I may use the expression, 
the learned judge dealt with the argument, that it had not made a very 
deep impression upon his mind. We must draw that inference. The 
fact is that the conviction took place, and it could not have taken place 
had this contention been well founded. So that your lordships have the 
earliest authorities and the most recent authority, and my submission 
to the Court is that this objection is ill founded and cannot be supported. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES My lords, I do not propose to follow my learned 
friend over the authorities which have been quoted. I desire to deal 
first of all with the case of The King v. Lynch, which is the only 
authority we have to get over as regards the wording of the statute. 
It is perfectly true, as your lordships have pointed out, that a judgment 
in The King v. Lynch was not delivered, but it is clear from the short- 
hand notes of the proceedings what the view was that the then Lord 
Chief Justice took. His view was that The King v. Vcwghcm was an 
authority which expressly overruled the view which was then put for- 
ward on behalf of Lynch. Why it was that the facts of The King v. 
Vaughan were not gone into I do not know, but it is clear from the 
indictment in The King v. Vaughcm that it lends no authority to the 
view which the Lord Chief Justice then took. The first count alleged 
acts committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and, I think, 
in the second count hostile acts were alleged within the dominion of the 
King. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We have already expressed our view upon 
that. You are quite justified in referring to it, and there has been no 
argument to the contrary. The King v. Vaughan is no authority against 
you. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES If your lordship pleases. With regard to the 
ancient writers which have been quoted, I propose humbly to follow my 
learned friend, the Attorney-General, subject only to this observation. 

121 



Sir Roger Casement. 

The question which your lordships have to determine is the construction 
of the words of an Act of Parliament, and the primary duty in the con- 
struction of a statute is to take the language of the statute itself, pro- 
vided it is free from ambiguity. My submission is that if you look at 
the words of the statute no ambiguity can arise from them. I notice that 
your lordship was reading the words of the statute from Archbold 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No, I was not. I read them from the 
revised statutes with the Norman French on the other side. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES I have looked at the actual statute itself, and 
I have something to say about that, because a good deal depends upon 
the grammatical construction of these words. I suggest that the punctua- 
tion marks and other things set out in Chitty and Archbold do not 
actually appear upon the document itself. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I have looked at a number of copies, repro- 
ductions of this Act, in the revised statutes and elsewhere, containing 
Luder'fi translation, and I have found that the commas vary in almost 
every case; and apparently, according to the interpretation that the 
author wished to give, he has inserted the commas. You can take up 
some authors and you will find the commas that make it so plain that 
you wonder that there can be any dispute about it; you can take up 
another which makes " aiding and comforting " run on to the " else- 
" where " without a comma. So I think we have to start with this, that 
commas have no place in the discussion before this Court. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES Might I supplement that by pointing out that 
Coke, who is treated with so much veneration, actually misspells the 
word. It is clear, if he had taken the trouble to go to the statute itself, 
he would not have made that mistake. Might I refer your lordships to 
what is known as the Record Office version of the statute. Your lord- 
ships will remember that a Commission was appointed somewhere in the 
reign of George III. to get the statutes together, and an official version was 
published in the year 1810, which sets out on one side the actual Norman- 
French words printed in the characters, with the contracted forms 
and abbreviations that were current at that time, and on the other side 
you have the translation. My submission to your lordships is that the 
construction which the learned Attorney-General seeks to put upon these 
words cannot be maintained, because that construction is repugnant to 
the express terms of the statute itself. That is my proposition. The 
recital begins in these words : " Whereas divers opinions have been before 
" this time in what case treason shall be said and in what not; The King 
" at the request of his Lords and of the Commons hath made a declara- 
" tion in the manner as hereinafter f olloweth : That is to say, when a 
" man doth compass or imagine the death of our Lord the King, or of 
" our Lady his Queen, " and so on, " or if a man do levy war against 
" our Lord the King in his realm " those are the words of limitation 
which must refer either to the enemy or to the person charged "or be 
" adherent to the King's enemies in his realm " exactly the same words 
of limitation which must apply either to the enemy or to the person 
charged, and which I suggest are words of limitation defining the limits 
within which the act of adherence must be committed. Then it goes on : 

122 



Motion to Quash Indictment. 

" Giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere." It is 
a little difficult to understand how the Attorney-General can say that 
those words ' ' or elsewhere ' ' should be in fact transferred from where 
they are put into another part, added to the preceding words. If 
the learned Attorney-General is right in his construction, Parliament 
could have meant nothing when it put in these words, " in his realm." 
Supposing you strike out the words " in his realm " in both offences, 
this is how the sentence would read: " If a man do levy war against our 
" Lord the King, or be adherent to the King's enemies, giving to them 
" aid and comfort in his realm or elsewhere." Then the construction 
which the learned Attorney-General puts upon it would no doubt be 
sound, but he cannot put that construction forward, because Parliament 
must not be presumed to have meant nothing when it used these words 
of limitation. If I may borrow the language of the advocate who 
argued the case of The King v. Lynch, such a construction as this gives 
the go-by altogether to these words of limitation. I submit that what 
the statute of Edward III. had in mind when it used these words, " giving 
" to them aid and comfort in the realm," was the particular form which 
adhering to the King's enemies might assume, and against which they 
were legislating. 

I submit to your lordships, with the greatest respect not only to the 
ancient writers but also to His Majesty's judges, that in the construction 
of an Act of Parliament the supreme authority is the language of the Act 
itself, and the function of your lordships is simply to give to them, to 
quote the words of Chief Justice Jarvis, the elementary rule of inter- 
pretation, giving to ordinary and plain words their plain and ordinary 
meaning. If the wording of the statute admitted of any other meaning, 
I agree that the interpretation put forward by the learned Attorney- 
General might be upheld. 

There is one point, and that is with reference to the Indictment 
Act of last year. The Lord Chief Justice yesterday went to the heart of 
the whole controversy when he said the question was whether the words 
" or elsewhere " governed the words immediately preceding them, or 
governed the rest. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Or governed both. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES Or governed both. On the other hand, they 
may be purely descriptive words. If they are words of description and 
not words of definition, then I submit the construction put forward by 
the learned Attorney-General cannot be upheld. The view which the 
learned counsel took who framed this indictment is exactly the same view 
as that which I am putting before this Court. May I refer your lord- 
ships to section 3 of the Indictment Act of last year. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Supposing it is, is he a greater authority 
than Hale or anybody else? How can it help us that somebody who 
framed the indictment before us took a particular view? 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES I may be wrong, but I was under the impression 
that I was discussing the indictment in this case. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE How can it help us if the indictment covers 
the offence? We can draw the inference ae well as the man who 
drew it. 

123 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES Put in that form I agree, but I think your lord- 
ship will see the point of my argument when I have developed it. 
Section 3 of the Indictment Act says : " Every indictment shall contain 
" and shall be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence 
<e or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with 
" such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable informa- 
" tion as to the nature of the charge." Under the rules, I think it is 
Rule 4, sub-section 3, " The statement of offence shall describe the 
"offence shortly in ordinary language, avoiding as far as possible the 
" use of technical terms, and without necessarily stating all the essential 
" elements of the offence, and if the offence charged is one created by 
" statute, shall contain a reference to the section of the statute creating 
" the offence." 

Now, if your lordships turn to the indictment here, the statement 
of the offence and the reference to the statute creating it is set out in a 
sentence: "High treason by adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere 
than in the King's realm, to wit, in the Empire of Germany, contrary 
to the Treason Act, 1351." Then particulars follow, and in the par- 
ticulars the Crown allege that " On the said several days traitorously con- 
triving and intending to aid and assist the said enemies of our Lord 
the King against our Lord the King and his subjects, did traitorously 
adhere to and aid and comfort the said enemies," showing clearly that 
the learned counsel who framed this indictment treated those words, 
" aiding and comforting," merely as words of description; and they appear 
in the particulars under the statute which says you must give particulars 
which may not give all the necessary ingredients of the offence, but shall 
at least give information as to the nature of the offence. The submission 
I make to the Court is that if the view of the Crown is that those words 
" aiding and comforting " are words of definition and not words of 
description, it was not the view of the learned counsel who framed 
the indictment, because he treats them as descriptive words and descrip- 
tive words alone. To go back to the statute once more, I have only put 
very shortly the point that I make, namely, that the construction which 
the Crown is putting upon these words is actually repugnant to the words 
of the statute itself. You must wipe out altogether those words " within 
" his realm," which appear in both offences, before you can put this con- 
struction upon the statute; and that being so I submit with deference 
to your lordships that the argument put forward on behalf of the 
defendant is a valid and substantial one. 

[Their lordships conferred.] 



Judgment on Motion to Quash Indictment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE A submission has been made to the Court 

by the defence that this indictment should be quashed on the ground that 

it discloses no offence known to the English law. Another way of 

putting the eame proposition is that the Court should rule, according to 

124 



Judgment on Motion to Quash Indictment. 

the contention of the defence, that the Crown has failed to prove an 
offence in law. The prisoner is charged with that species of treason 
which is known as adhering to the King's enemies. The charge in the 
indictment is the offence of " high treason by adhering to the King's 
" enemies elsewhere than in the King's realm, to wit, in the Empire of 
" Germany, contrary to the Treason Act, 1351." The argument advanced 
and supported by careful, well-reasoned, and able arguments of Mr. 
Sullivan and those who supported his contention is to the effect that 
adherence to the King's enemies without the realm is not an offence 
against the statute of Edward III., that is to say, the statute of 1351. 
We have had the advantage of elaborate arguments, by no means too 
elaborate on behalf of the defence, and also on behalf of the Crown by the 
Attorney-General; and although this point has been discussed many times 
in the books, and decided, according to our view, in the most recent 
case of treason, Lynch' s case, yet it merits careful examination by this 
Court. The argument is that this Court must construe the words of the 
statute of 1351 and must pay no regard to any commentary that may 
have been made by learned authors, however distinguished, when arriving* 
at the meaning of the words. That we must interpret the words of the 
statute is beyond question. That we should not be entitled to do violence 
to the words of the statute may, I think, also be assumed. 

But if the words of the statute are not clear, and if it be possible to 
construe the statute in two different ways, then the comments of great 
lawyers, masters of the common law, during the last three or four 
centuries, cannot be allowed to pass by this Court without the greatest 
regard and consideration. The words in question, in the statute 
25 Edward III. are these paraphrasing them " It shall be treason if 
" a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm or be 
" adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and 
" comfort in the realm or elsewhere." The contention is that those 
words " or elsewhere " govern only the words " aid and comfort in the 
"realm," and have no application to the words " be adherent to the 
11 King's enemies." As the offence is of adhering to the King's 
enemies, if the words " or elsewhere " do not apply to the adhering, 
then the contention of the defence would be right. If, on the other 
hand, the Crown's contention is correct that those words " or elsewhere " 
do govern the adhering to the King's enemies, then it is plain that it is 
an offence to adhere to the King's enemies by an act committed without 
the realm. In order to avoid ambiguity I would add also this, that to 
constitute the offence for this purpose it is not sufficient to show that 
the aid and comfort has been given to enemies without the realm. Th& 
act of adherence which constitutes the charge also must have been com- 
mitted without the realm for this purpose, because the whole of this 
indictment is based upon the offence of adhering to the King's enemies 
without the realm. 

Now, I repeat what I said during the course of the argument, that 
we must construe these words of this statute, now some 560 years old, 
without reference to commas or brackets, but merely looking to the 
language. The history of the law of treason of this country is certainly 
of importance in considering the statute of 1351. It is unnecessary at 

125 



Sir Roger Casement. 

this time, and having regard to the authorities to which I shall call 
attention in a moment, to refer in great detail to the early law; but I 
have no hesitation myself in stating that if a man adhere to the King's 
enemies without the realm he is committing the offence of treason ; that 
he was committing the offence of treason at common law, notwithstand- 
ing that the offence was committed without the realm. We have heard 
considerable argument to establish that the common law of England never 
knew a crime which was not committed within the territory of England, 
that is to say, in ancient times, of course; and it is said the common 
law of England still obtains except in so far as it has been altered by 
statute. There is some authority for the proposition which I have stated 
to which I mean to refer, which is in Sir Matthew Hale's Pleas of the 
Crown, vol. 1, page 169, in which he says : " Touching the trial of foreign 
treason, viz., adhering to the King's enemies without the kingdom at 
this day the statute of 35 Henry VIII. hath sufficiently provided for 
it " ; and this is the passage upon which I lay special stress: " But 
at common law he might have been indicted in any county of England, 
and especially where the offender's lands lie, if he have any." 

The reference is given for that to a case in the fifth year of the reign 
of Kichard II., which ie to be found in Fitzherbert's Abridgment, under 
the heading of " Trial," section 54. The substance of it I am not 
quoting the exact words is that the then King's Attorney stated to the 
Court, and apparently, so far as one can judge from the report, without 
any contradiction by the Court, and, so far as I know, without any con- 
tradiction to be found in any book up to this very day, that that was 
the law, and it was adopted as the law by Sir Matthew Hale in the 
passage which I have read. I will make this observation with reference 
to the common law, that it is quite right to say it might be said that 
whatever may have been the common law ought not to affect our decision 
in determining the interpretation of the statute. I will accept that and 
say we must construe the language of the statute even though that statute 
is declaratory of the common law; but it is a matter not lightly to be 
passed by that the common law before the statute was, in my opinion, as 
I have stated it. It has been said more than once, certainly by Lord 
Blackburn and others, that this statute of 1351 was declaratory of the 
common law. There is no doubt that at that time there was great agita- 
tion amongst the subjects of the King because of the fear of the conse- 
quence of being charged with treason, which was a crime at that time so 
vague, or thought to be so vague, that those who might be charged with 
it were apprehensive of the consequences; and the result was that on 
petition to Parliament the statute then became law and received the 
assent of the King in the words to which I have referred. 

Now from the year 1351 until the thirty -fifth year of the reign of 
Henry VIII., there is little to assist us; but in the reign of Henry VIII. 
a statute was passed which in my view is of importance in this connection. 
The statute is entitled " An Acte concerninge the triall of Treasons 
" comytted out of the King's Majesties domynions." It recites again 
I am paraphrasing the language that doubts and questions had arisen 
as to the trial of treasons and misprisions of treasons committed abroad. 
126 



Judgment on Motion to Quash Indictment. 

It is worth noting that the doubts had not arisen as to whether the 
act, if committed abroad, would amount to treason, but only as to the 
trial. Then the statute proceeds : " Be it enacted by authority of this 
" present Parliament that all manner of offences being already made or 
f( declared or hereafter to be made or declared by any of the laws and 
" statutes of this realm to be treasons," then " shall be tried by the 
" King's Justices 57 that is the King's Bench, and also as an alterna- 
tive by Commissioners where a Commission is appointed. Now, that 
statute assumes that the offence of treason can be -committed without 
the realm; and it prescribes in respect of all such offences as have 
already been declared the niode of procedure, or, rather, the venue of 
the trial. The statute shows plainly that the offence existed. From 
that time the statute has regulated the trial of offences committed with- 
out the realm- 
It is by virtue of that statute and subsequent statutes, which have 
really done nothing more than provide that the counties of London and 
Middlesex shall be one county for this purpose, that the jurisdiction of 
this Court is derived. It is because we are sitting as judges of the 
King's Bench that we become the judges to try this case, for the reason 
that if it is a treason committed without the realm, the venue is pre- 
scribed by this statute of Henry VIII. as of the King's justices where 
they isit and be kept. That statute of Henry VIII. is, to my mind, 
authority for this proposition, at least it ehows clearly what the law 
was at the time it was passed. That there was the offence of treason 
without the realm; and further, quite consistent with the reading which 
the Crown wishes to give to the statute of 1351, it would apply to the 
offence of adhering to the King's enemies without the realm. The 
doubts that have arisen from beginning to end, so far as we have been 
able to trace in looking through the various books to which we have had 
access, and to which our attention has been called, are never as to the 
offence, but only as to the venue; and the whole difficulty which arose 
was, as was pointed out by learned authors, and more especially in Hawkins' 
Pleas of the Crown, book 2, chapter 25, section 48, where this matter 
is dealt with in passages that have been read, and of which I will only 
read one short passage now, as to the venue. There the learned author 
says: " It seems to have been a great doubt before the making of the 
" statute of 35 Henry VIII. in what manner and in what place high treason 
' ( done out of the realm was to be tried ' ' there is not the faintest sugges- 
tion that the offence did not exist, but only a doubt as to the manner 
and place of trial " for some seem to have holden that it was triable 
11 only by an appeal before the constable and marshal; others, that it 
" might be tried upon an indictment, laying the offence in any county 
" where the King pleased; and others, that it was triable by way of 
(e indictment in that county only wherein the offender had lands ; but 
" surely it cannot reasonably be doubted but that it was triable some 
" way or other; for it cannot be imagined that an offence of such 
' ' dangerous consequence, and expressly within the purview of 25 
'' Edward III., should be wholly dispunishable, as it must have been 
"if it were no way triable." I am content to adopt every word of that 

127 



Sir Roger Casement. 

language of that great master of the law, and also of Sir Matthew Hale, 
whom I have just quoted. The only observation I wish to make upon 
it is that the defence would say, as Mr. Sullivan pointed out, and I 
think rightly, that upon this section 48 it does not follow that the mean- 
ing must be given to the words now under discussion, because it is isaid 
there were other offences of treason without the realm. But equally it 
must be observed that there is no exception drawn for this statement, 
and there is nothing which would support the exception being made 
save the interpretation of the statute contended for by the defence. I can 
find no justification for doubting that these learned authors meant their 
language to apply equally to a case of adhering to the King's enemies 
without the realm as to any other kind of offence of treason without 
the realm. 

I will not read again the passage in Coke's Institutes, but in volume 3 
there is a statement of the law which is plain in its terms, and which 
Mr. Sullivan quite frankly stated was an authority against him if the 
Court accepted it as an authority. The passages have been read so 
often that I do not propose to read them again. They are to be found 
in chapter 1 of the Third Institute of Coke, on pages 10 and 11. 

Then, coming to the later days, there are passages in a case in 
1868, MulcaTvy v. The Queen., reported in Law Reports, 3 English and 
Irish Appeal Cases, at page 306, in which Mr. Justice Willes, in 
giving his opinion of the law relating to treason to the House of Lords 
not only his opinion but the opinion of all the judges adopted the 
construction of the words of the statute of 1351, that the offence was 
committed if a person be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm 
or elsewhere. He leaves out the words which have given rise to this 
discussion, that is, " giving them aid and comfort." The views were 
adopted by the House of Lords. It is right here again to say that Mr. 
Sullivan pointed out, and again I say in my judgment accurately, that 
these observations of Mr. Justice Willes were by the way; they were 
obiter] but nevertheless they were the considered opinion of the judges 
to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords did not dissent from any 
one of the views expressed. 

Then at last we come to the decision of The King v. Lynch, decided 
in 1903. There the same argument was advanced by the defence that 
has been put forward before us, and it was persisted in and elaborately 
argued. The Court there came to the conclusion that the defendant's 
contention was wrong, and, although it gave no judgment, the then 
Lord Chief Justice proceeded to sum up and directed the jury as if it 
was an offence. Lynch was convicted by the jury, and if the argument 
of the defence is right in this case, Lynch never should have been con- 
victed, and the Court ought to have ruled that no offence had been dis- 
closed either by the evidence or in the indictment. The Court did not 
so rule, but on the contrary directed the jury upon the assumption that 
the offence was disclosed if the jury took a particular view of the facts. 

Now, that is a current of authority which is strong. I will not 
pass over the case in Dyer to which our attention was called, and upon 
which much reliance was placed by Mr. Sullivan. His argument was 
128 



Judgment on Motion to Quash Indictment. 

that when you look at that case you will find that there it was asserted 
that there was no such offence known to the common law as treason 
committed out of the realm; and, indeed, he went further, that no such 
offence was known to the law at all, because no means had been found of 
trying the offence until the statute of 35 Henry VIII. But on examina- 
tion of the case in Dyer 2 Dyer, page 131 (6) it is clear it is not a judg- 
ment at all; it is a memorandum of the judge and the King's Serjeants, 
some doubt having arisen as to whether a statute of 1 & 2 Philip and Mary 
had overruled the statute 35 Henry VIII. in so far as that statute declared 
that treasons without the realm should be tried by the judges of the King's 
Bench. The result was that they came to the conclusion that the statute of 
Henry VIII. was not overruled, and reliance was placed before us upon 
these words, " because no offence of treason committed out of the realm 
" was triable here by the course of the common law." The first com- 
ment upon that is this. It assumes that there was an offence of treason 
committed out of the realm, but the difficulty was that it was not known 
how it was triable by the course of the common law, and all that the 
learned judges did the judges and the Master of the Rolls there 
assembled was to declare what they thought was the effect of this 
statute 1 & 2 Philip and Mary. It does not touch the question which 
is now being argued before us. It does not assume that at common 
law there was no offence of treason without the realm. It is the opposite. 
The only difficulty again, such as one finds running through centuries 
of our law, is as to the procedure when there was treason without the 
realm; that is, as to the venue of the trial. 

Now, our attention was called by the learned Attorney-General to a 
series of cases of which I only propose to refer to three, and in truth 
to rely only upon one. First of all there was the case of Lord Wentworth, 
Grimston, and Chamberlain. The indictment there, we were told by the 
learned Attorney-General, was for an offence committed in Calais. Lord 
Wentworth apparently was sent to the House of Lords to be tried, Grim- 
ston was acquitted, and Chamberlain was convicted. I find it difficult 
to take that case as an authority; indeed I do not think we can regard 
it as one, because it was tried in the year 1558, and according to the 
indictment it seems clear that the offence was laid treating Calais as 
within the King's dominions. Consequently, in my judgment, that case 
cited to us by the Attorney-General does not help us. The next case 
he cited was the Duke of Wharton case, which was tried in the year 
1729. There, according to the statement made from investigation of 
the indictment and the records, the offence was of adhering to the King's 
enemies in Spain. There, according to the overt acts to which our 
attention was directed, the offence of adhering was committed in Spain, 
and the aid and comfort were given in Spain. So that the complete 
offence of treason without the realm was there charged. As a result the 
Duke of Wharton did not appear, and he was outlawed; but it assumes 
again that according to the law of England he had committed the offence. 
The observation to be made upon it is that the defence did not appear 
to put forward its view, and therefore it might not have the full authority 
which would be given to a case in which the argument was put before 
the Court on behalf of the defence. 

K 129 



Sir Roger Casement. 

The third case was that of William Cundell, tried in the year 
1812, of which the records are extant, and of which there is no report 
except in the 4th volume of the Newgate Calendar, page 62. That was 
a case of adhering without the realm to the King's enemies, and giving 
them aid and comfort there. The case was tried. The persons were 
within the jurisdiction of this Court, and sentence was pronounced. 
According to that it seems clear that in 1812 there is distinct authority 
for the proposition that it is an offence to adhere without the realm to 
the King's enemies. It was the case of persons who were confined in 
the Isle of France, and who had then forsaken their allegiance to the 
King and taken it to the French. I think, in view of that judgment to 
which our attention has been called, it cannot be said that there is no 
authority to be found in our books for the proposition advanced by the 
Crown until the authority of The King v. Lynch. 

I do not propose to go further through the various authorities. I 
have called attention to the most important of them. I come to the 
conclusion that the offence, if proved in fact, has been committed in 
law. We are merely considering now the case upon the assumption 
that the facts prove it. The argument of the defence is put forward on 
that basis, that no offence is made out in law. Of course, it must not 
for one moment be thought, and is not thought by those who under- 
stand our procedure, that that in any way admits the offence. It is 
merely a legal argument. The result of it is that in my judgment 
the words " giving to them aid and comfort " may be read as in a 
parenthesis; but I do not exclude the application of the words " or 
" elsewhere " to that parenthesis; I think it applies just as much to 
the parenthesis as it does to the preceding words. I am of opinion, 
although it is not necessary to state it for the purposes of this case, that 
the words " or elsewhere " govern both limbs of the sentence both 
the adhering to the King's enemies and the aid and comfort to the King's 
enemies, and that it is an offence to adhere within the realm or with- 
out the realm to the King's enemies, and it is equally an offence to 
adhere within the realm to the King's enemies by giving them aid and 
comfort without the realm. 

For these reasons I am of opinion, notwithstanding the learned and 
able arguments that have been addressed to us, that the point fails and 
that the motion to quash the indictment must be refused. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY I agree that this objection fails whether it be 
regarded as an objection to the indictment that it discloses no offence 
upon the face of it or whether it be regarded as an objection that there 
is no evidence to go to the jury of an offence committed within the 
meaning of the statute of Edward III. It would, in my opinion, be 
sufficient in this Court to say that the point which has. been argued so 
strenuously and with so much learning before us has been already decided 
by this Court in the case of The King v. Lynch ; but, having regard to the 
criticisms which have been passed upon that case, I think it right to 
add my own reasons for coming to the same conclusion as that which 
has been expressed by my lord the Chief Justice. 

First of all, it is not right to say that the point was not in fact 
130 



Judgment on Motion to Quash Indictment. 

decided in The King v. Lynch. While it is true that no formal judg- 
ment was pronounced on the objection, it will be found by reference to 
the report of the case in 19 Times Law Reports that the Lord Chief 
Justice stopped the Attorney-General in his reply to the argument and 
said that they were satisfied on the point, and unless he wanted to cite 
any further authorities, they did not wish to hear him further. That 
was in fact a decision that the point taken was a bad one. But further, 
and beyond the fact to which allusion hae been made, that the prisoner 
in that case could not have been convicted unless the point was decided 
against him, it will also be found in the same report of the summing 
up of the learned Lord Chief Justice that he, towards the close of his 
summing up, used these words. He reminded the jury " that the 
" charge against the prisoner was that of aiding the King's enemies; 
' ' and he had already told them that the facts which had been laid before 
" them amounted to aiding the King's enemies, and that wherever it 
" was done this was an offence in respect of which, if proved, the 
" prisoner ought to be found guilty upon this indictment." So that 
there was an express direction in terms in that case to the jury that 
wherever the acts were done of adherence to the King's enemies that was 
an offence within the meaning of the statute. 

Now, it is, I think, also clear that in interpreting this statute of 
Edward III. the Court must do it in the light of the fact that it has been 
decided to be an Act of Parliament declaratory of the common law. I 
cannot doubt that before this istatute of Edward III. it was treason in a 
British subject to join the forces of an enemy abroad, and that if a 
British subject had joined the forces of an enemy abroad at war with 
this country, and he afterwards returned or was brought back to thisi 
country, he could be tried here for that offence. When one has regard 
to the nature of this offence of high treason, I think it is obvious that it 
must have been so. Foster in his Crown Law thus describes the offence 
of high treason: " High treason being an offence committed against the 
" duty of allegiance, it may be proper to consider from whom and to 
" whom allegiance is due. With regard to natural-born subjects there 
" can be no doubt. They owe allegiance to the Crown at all times and 
" in all places. This is what we call natural allegiance in contradistinc- 
11 tion to that which is local. Natural allegiance is founded in the 
" relation every man standeth in to the Crown, considered as the head 
" of that (society whereof he is born a member; and on the peculiar 
f( privileges he deriveth from that relation which are, with great 
" propriety, called his birthright. This birthright nothing but his 
" own demerit can deprive him of. It is indefeasible and perpetual; 
" and consequently the duty of allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is 
" inseparably connected with it, is, in consideration of law, likewise 
" unalienable and perpetual." 

In view of that definition of the offence of high treason, I think it 
cannot be doubted, as I have said, that such an offence committed by a 
British subject abroad was triable, justiciable, in this country and the 
only doubts which had arisen before the statute of Henry VIII. were as 
expressed by Hawkins in hi Pleas of the Crown in the passage which 

131 



Sir Roger Casement. 

my lord the Chief Justice lias already read; not a doubt whether it was 
triable here; not a doubt whether it was an offence committed by a 
British subject; but a doubt only as to the proper place and the proper 
manner in which it should be tried. He points out that some have held 
that it ehould be tried in one county; others have held that it should be 
tried in another county ; others have held that it should be tried upon an 
indictment laying the offence in any county where the King pleased. 
That, no doubt, had reference to a special Commission issued by the King 
for the trial of a particular treason, and which special Commission would, 
in my opinion, get rid of all difficulty about local venue. 

Now, that being so, if this was an offence triable in this country 
before the statute of Edward III., that is to say, if the offence of treason 
committed abroad was triable in this country before the statute of Edward 
III., and the statute of Edward III. is declaratory only of the common law, 
it would be a strange conclusion that the statute has limited the offence 
to treasons committed or to overt acts which have been committed within 
the realm. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, the offence of 
adhering to the King's enemies, giving aid and comfort to them, is an 
offence which is more likely, prima facie at all events, to be committed 
out of the realm than within it, and it would be a strange enactment to 
provide if the common law was, as I have said, that after this date the 
offence could only be committed by a person who was within the realm 
at the time when he committed it. 

With reference to the construction of the actual words, again it would 
be sufficient, as my lord has pointed out, to say that the great authorities 
have uniformly put upon these words the construction which the Crown 
invite us to put, namely, that the statute does not limit this kind of 
treason to treason committed by a subject within the realm. But there 
appear to be two constructions of it which have been adopted, either of 
which will satisfy and answer this objection. It may be that the words 
"or elsewhere" are to be read as applying to the words "be adherent 
" to the King's enemies," that is to say, if he be adherent to the King's 
enemies in his realm or elsewhere; or it may be, as Serjeant Hawkins 
seemed to think. In book 1, chapter 17, of his Treatise, he says, " As to the 
" second point, namely, what shall be said to be an adherence to the King's 
" enemies, this is explained by the words subsequent ' giving aid and 
" ' comfort to them ' " ; and it may be therefore that the proper con- 
struction of this section is that the words " giving aid and comfort in the 
"realm or elsewhere" are an explanation or an exposition of the kind 
of adherence to the King's enemies which is aimed at by the statute. 
Nobody questions that the words "or elsewhere" apply to the giving 
of aid and comfort to the enemy, and it may be therefore that the proper 
construction is that if a person gives aid and comfort to the King's 
enemies either in the realm or elsewhere he is committing the offence of 
adhering to the King's enemies within the meaning of this statute. Which- 
ever view be taken, as I have said, it is sufficient to say that all the 
authorities agree that it is not limited in the manner in which the learned 
counsel for the prisoner have invited us to confine it. 

It only remains to consider in one word the statute of Henry VIII., 
which provides for the trial in this country of treasons committed abroad. 
132 



Judgment on Motion to Quash Indictment. 

In my view there is nothing in this statute which assist the argument 
for the prisoner. The recital of it is, " Forasmuch as some doubts and 
" questions have been moved that certain kinds of treasons, misprisions, 
" and concealment of treasons done or committed out of the King's realm 
"cannot by the common law be inquired of." In my opinion that 
recital or preamble of the statute rather assumes that there are already 
certain kinds of treason committed out of the realm which may be tried 
within the realm, and the probability is that it was only for removing 
doubts as to the other kinds of treason, many of which had been enacted 
either in the reign of Henry VIII., or shortly before. At all events, 
it makes it clear that after that date any treason committed out of the 
realm may be tried, as this one is being tried, by His Majesty's judges in 
the King's Bench. 

For these reasons I agree that this objection must be overruled. 

Mr. JUSTICE HORBIDGE After the very careful consideration by the 
Lord Chief Justice of the law before the statute, of the statute, of the 
cases in which the decision involved construction of the statute, and of the 
writings of learned authors, I do not think I should usefully occupy the 
time of the Court by again reviewing those matters. All I wish to say is 
this. My view is that the true construction of the statute is the one 
which is to be found in the opinion of the judges in the case of Mulcahy v. 
The Queen. In the words of Mr. Justice Willes, " If a man be adherent 
" to the King' si enemies in this realm or elsewhere," and that there ought 
only to be added to those words the direction as to the use of the words 
"or elsewhere " contained in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice. I 
agree with every word of the judgment, and I also agree that this 
objection fails. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Sullivan, are you in a position to tell 
us now as to the course you propose to take? Do not do so if it is 
inconvenient. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The prisoner desires to make a statement, and then 
I shall address the jury. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Very well. (To the jury) You must 
understand, gentlemen, that the statement which the prisoner wishes to 
make to you is not made upon oath, and he cannot be cross-examined 
upon it. 

The PRISONER May I have permission to read the statement which I 
desire to make? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. 



Statement by the Prisoner. 

The PRISONER My lords and gentlemen of the jury, I desire to say a 
few words only with reference to some of the statements made by the 
prosecution. As to my pension and the honour of knighthood conferred 
upon me I will say one word only. The pension I had earned by services 
rendered, and it was assigned by law. The knighthood it was not in my 
power to refuse. 

But, gentlemen, there are especially four mis statements given in the 
evidence against me which I wish to refute. First, I never at any time 

133 



Sir Roger Casement. 

advised Irishmen to fight with Turks against Russians, nor to fight with 
Germans on the Western Front. Secondly, I never asked an Irishman to 
fight for Germany. I have always claimed that he has no right to fight 
for any land but Ireland. Thirdly, the horrible insinuation that I got 
my own people's rations' reduced to starvation point because they did not 
join the Irish Brigade is an abominable falsehood. The rations were 
necessarily reduced throughout Germany owing to the blockade, and they 
were reduced for Irish prisoners at exactly the same time and to the same 
extent as for the German soldiers and the entire population of Germany. 
The other suggestion that men were sent to punishment camps at my 
instance for not joining the Irish Brigade is one that I need hardly pause 
to refute. It is devoid of all foundation. Fourthly, there is a widespread 
imputation of German gold. I owe it to those in Ireland who are assailed 
with me on this very ground to nail the lie once and for all. It was 
published by newspapers in America, and originally, I think, in this 
country; and I cabled to America and instructed my American lawyer, 
Mr. Councillor Doyle, to proceed against those newspapers for libel. Those 
who know me know the incredibility of this malicious invention, for they 
know from all my past record that I have never sold myself to any man 
or to any Government, and have never allowed any Government to use me. 
From the first moment I landed on the Continent until I came home again 
to Ireland I never asked for nor accepted a single penny of foreign money, 
neither for myself nor for any Irish cause nor for any purpose whatsoever, 
but only the money of Irishmen. I refute so obvious a slander, because 
it was so often made until I came back. Money was offered to me in 
Germany more than once, and offered liberally and unconditionally, but 
I rejected every suggestion of the kind, and I left Germany a poorer man 
than I entered it. Money I could always obtain from my own countrymen, 
and I am not ashamed here to acknowledge the debt of gratitude I owe to 
many Irish friends and sympathisers who did freely and gladly help me 
when I was on the Continent; and I take the opportunity here of stating 
how deeply I have been touched by the generosity and loyalty of those 
English friends of mine who have given me proof of their abiding friendship 
during these last dark weeks- of strain and trial. 

I trust, gentlemen of the jury, I have made that statement clearly 
and emphatically enough for all men, even my most bitter enemies, to 
comprehend that a man who, in the newspapers is said to be just another 
Irish traitor, may be a gentleman. 

There is another matter I wish to touch upon. The Attorney- General 
of England thought it consistent with tradition of which he is the public 
representative to make a veiled allusion in his opening address to the 
rising in Ireland, of which he has brought forward no evidence in this case 
from first to last, and to which, therefore, you and I, gentlemen, as laymen, 
would have supposed that he would have scrupulously refrained from 
referring to. Since the rising has been mentioned, however, I must state 
categorically that the rebellion was not made in Germany, and that not one 
penny of German gold went to finance it. 

Gentlemen of the jury, I have touched on these personal matters alone 
because, intended as they were to reflect on my honour, they were 
calculated to tarnish the cause that I hold dear. That is all, my lords. 

134 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Serjeant Sullivan's Speech for the Prisoner. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If your lordships please, gentlemen of the jury, it is 
indeed a matter of congratulation that such a trial as this at such a time 
is taking place here in the capital city of your nation in open Court accord- 
ing to the ordinary process of law regulating the lives of the civil subjects 
of His Majesty. That is a great tribute to the confidence and courage of 
your race, but its lesson would be worse than lost if in the trial your 
verdict should be to the smallest degree coloured by passion, prejudice, or 
preconception arising from matters outside this Court. The trial is a 
trial for the life of a man. It is more than that. You represent your 
country. The old form of giving in charge, prevalent elsewhere in His 
Majesty's dominions, proclaimed that the prisoner threw himself upon his 
God and upon his country for his deliverance. The prisoner is not a 
countryman of yours. He is a stranger within your gates. He comes 
from another country where people, though they use the same words, 
perhaps, speak differently; they think differently; they act differently. 
It is your duty to demonstrate in the face of the world, whose attention 
is challenged, and most properly challenged, by this brave proceeding 
of open trial in such a case, that old virtue for which you have achieved 
a reputation the world over, the virtue of the accordance of fair play 
between man and man. That you will endeavour to do so, I know well, 
for I am deeply and sincerely and gratefully cognisant from my experience 
in this Court of the kind of spirit of fair play that is accorded to any 
stranger who ventures within your precincts. 

But, gentlemen, your task is not an easy one. We do not in a 
moment throw off the atmosphere in which we have always lived, and 
we cannot in a day shake from our minds that which has lingered there 
and has become almost a form of faith by being pondered on and thought 
of from day to day. Your task is a difficult one and a serious one. I 
can well judge of the burden that is upon you from the effect upon 
myself, who had a less burdensome task than you, for yours is the last 
word, of my effort to discharge my duty in the conduct of these pro- 
ceedings. 

Gentlemen, I propose at the outset to call your attention to and 
try and make plain to you what is the matter that is charged against the 
prisoner at the bar. You are not asked to pronounce any opinion of 
approbation or reprobation of any general conduct of the man who stands 
before you. The charge against him may be stated in a few words, 
that whatever you think of his general conduct, whatever you think of his 
views -of policy or of public affairs, or of the propriety of introducing 
one view of public affairs rather than another as the uppermost in his 
mind in regulating his actions, in the end your verdict must come back 
to this Did the prisoner at the bar adhere to the King's enemies in 
Germany 1 

135 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 

You have heard the indictment read out to you, but perhaps to your 
mind the indictment has conveyed little. In a few words the charge is 
this, that Sir Roger Casement aided the military power of Germany in 
the war waged against His Majesty the King. That, I think, may fairly 
epitomise the charge. The indictment sets out what are called overt 
acts, but are merely instances of evidence with regard to the main charge, 
for the indictment is supposed to give warning to the man who is arraigned 
upon it. What is the nature of the evidence and what are the facts sought 
to be proved from which the jury is to be asked to draw the inference that 
he aided the military power of Germany in this war against the Crown? 

Now, gentlemen, the acts that are alleged an the indictment ure 
six in number. I need not read to you in detail what they amount 
to, for again I can shortly and fairly state to you in plain language what 
they mean. Most of them deal with the allegation that while in Ger- 
many Sir Roger Casement recruited a number of Irishmen, alleged in 
the evidence to be about fifty or fifty-two, to aid Germany in the war 
against the Empire. That is the real substance of the charge against 
him, and I want you clearly to understand what is the meaning of the 
charge and what is the meaning of the evidence of the charge as given in 
the overt acts. 

It would be wasting time if I were to pass on to a consideration of the 
case before you had clearly before you the end to which my observations 
are addressed, and if I appear to labour them you must pardon me. I 
shall necessarily occupy your time far longer than I would wish; you 
must excuse me for that. I shall say much perhaps that will strike a 
jarring note in your minds. I only ask you to believe that I am trying 
to do my duty. I appreciate how difficult it is that you should be put 
into a position I doubt my power to do it to understand what goes on 
in the mind of an Irishman. I am conscious of a strange atmosphere 
as I stand here. You have to try the man for his intentions ; you have 
to judge of his motives; and there is no task so difficult as judging of 
the motives or intentions of a man who is not of your race and is not one 
of yourselves. Now, the intention of the prisoner is the whole substance 
of the offence of treason. It is his view of his own acts which must justify 
him or condemn him. Unless he intends treachery to the King, the fact 
that others may use with advantage that which he does, against his inten- 
tion, perhaps to the public detriment of the realm, does not make him 
guilty of treason. The essence of treason is the evil mind that plans it. 

Therefore, when you come to consider what is alleged against Sir 
Roger Casement here, you will always have to weigh it so far as it is 
humanly possible for you to do so, for the purpose of ascertaining with 
regard to each act, what did Sir Roger Casement do that for? What was 
in his mind? What was his motive? And I do not ask you to reject, 
because I think it is most unfair that you should ever consider as bearing 
on that, what might be in the mind of any other human being, or that 
you should digress into the interminable inquiry what might be the 
ultimate result of any human act, and to whom might ultimate benefit or 
ultimate loss occur. There will be very little dispute about what are the 
true facts of the case. I hardly believe there will be any, because I am 
136 



Speech for Prisoner. 

Mr. Sullivan 

happy to say that my duty compels me to comment upon one part of the 
evidence of one witness alone in the address which I have to present 
before you. 

Now, gentlemen, what is proved that Sir Roger Casement has done? 
He went to the camp at Limburg. He did. He appealed to Irishmen to 
join an Irish Brigade. He did. Did any human being ever hear him ask 
an Irishman to fight for Germany? Not one. Subject to a comment that 
I shall have to make upon a new piece of evidence, introduced, I hope, as 
much to the surprise of the Crown as to myself, for I would in fair play 
have been entitled to notice of it if the Crown could have given me notice 
subject to that, no human being, although you have evidence of four 
or five or six speeches of Sir Roger Casement in the Limburg camp, in 
no one of these pronouncements did he ever ask that an Irishman should 
fight for Germany. He asked that they should join an Irish Brigade. I 
will read to you in detail the evidence of each witness that has spoken 
about it, but I ask you to come to the conclusion that in the main the 
fact is this : he asked that they should join an Irish Brigade, that when 
the war was over or when the eeas were clear and until the war was 
over, the seas, you. know, would never be clear either when the war 
was over or the iseas were clear and he spoke in a context of the war 
being over soon the men who enlisted with him would be landed in 
Ireland to fight for Ireland. To fight for Ireland. 

I will deal with the allusion to the enemy in Ireland afterwards, 
and I hope, if you accept the view of the evidence that I put forward 
before you, corroborated by a number of witnesses, speaking of different 
speeches, speaking of different occasions, yet, strange to say, almost all 
reproducing almost in exact terms the eame adjuration: "If you are 
" Irishmen, join the Irish Brigade; when the war is over I will land you in 
"Ireland, and there you may serve your country, and you may ha.ve to 
" fight for it " : if you take that view, later in my address to you I hope to 
convince you that that is not treason. If the object was to have in Ireland 
at the close of the war men in arms and skilled in arms for the purpose 
of protecting what were the rights of the people of Ireland against unlawful 
tyranny, no matter in whose name it was sought to be exercised, that is 
not treason. It may be some offence in Ireland. You know nothing of 
that. When I come to deal with the position of affairs there I will have 
to point out to you that in this Court nothing is known of what the law 
of Ireland on such a subject may be. You cannot assume that it would 
be right or wrong unless the act is done within this indictment, an act 
done for the purpose of aiding Germany in this war to carry on her war- 
fare against His Majesty's Empire. 

Now, gentlemen, am I right in the version I have presented to you of 
the terms upon which Sir Roger Casement sought to enlist the service 
of the Irishmen in Limburg? They were in truth soldiers. That makes 
no difference in the offence save in making it somewhat easier for the 
Crown to prove that they were subjects of His Majesty, so far as that 
may assist them. But if he recruited anywhere people of any nationality, 
of any occupation, for the purpose of aiding Germany in this war against 
the Empire, that is the offence with which he is charged. Their individu- 

137 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

ality matters nothing, their situation matters nothing, save in so far as it 
gives you an insight into his motives, save in so far as it may assist you 
to determine what was his intention in seeking to enlist the services of 
these men. Observe, the charge is to aid Germany in the war. Observe, 
for I state at the outset I will have to come back to it again not one 
atom of assistance in the war did Germany ever get from any human being 
in consequence of Sir Roger Casement's intervention. No man ever fired 
a shot for her. Of the fifty-two men who were recruited not one ever 
appeared in the German ranks or in the command of any German officer. 
No man has been eeen in the service of Germany as a result of Sir Roger 
Casement's action not one and I shall have to comment on that when 
I come to deal with another part of the evidence. What aid or assistance 
is he alleged to have given? We have the particulars. They amount 
to this, that he recruited practically for the German Army or for an army 
to be used by Germany for German purposes directed against the Empire 
of His Majesty. There is no mention of them. You find them nowhere. 

So far from being of service to Germany, Germany, whatever good she 
may have expected to get out of the episode, has at all events heretofore- 
been solely at a loss by treating these men somewhat better than she 
treated prisoners of war and having them living in idleness at greater 
expense to Germany than other foreigners that she had within her camps. 
You will ask yourselves therefore when it comes to that what is the 
military aid that Sir Roger Casement gave them. 

But, gentlemen, before I come to deal with that in detail I will pass 
to the evidence of what Sir Roger Casement said he wanted the Irish 
Brigade for. The first witness to that is, I think, Cronin. In answer to 
the Lord Chief Justice he says 1 

He said that he was going to form an Irish Brigade, and he said, "Why live 
"any longer in hunger and misery in this camp when you can better yourselves by 
"joining the Irish Brigade which I am going to form; you will be sent to Berlin 
"as the guests of the German Government." 

Examination continued Did he say what this Irish Brigade was to do ? He 
said in the event of Germany winning a sea battle he would land them in Ireland, 
and would equip them. 

What were they to do in Ireland? Free Ireland. 

Did he say who they were to fight against? Against England. 

Did he say what would happen to them if Germany did not win? They would 
be sent to America; they would get 10 or 20 pocket money and a free passage. 
I have told the jury now what I remember of the speech he made on the first 
occasion when I saw him. He was asked who he was, and he said that he was 
Sir Roger Casement, the Organiser of the Irish National Volunteer movement. 

That is Oonin's description. Then he deals with the matter again 2 

Did he speak of raising the Irish Brigade in Limburg in connection with the 
Irish Volunteers in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say that they would fight in Ireland? Yes. 

That they were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

And for Ireland? Yes. 

And for nobody else? For nobody else, only for Ireland. 

That is Cronin's evidence of what he said. Is that confirmed by the 
others? Remember, when you have different speeches there will be a 
little variation of a phrase or a word, or a sentence here and there, but 

l . 17. 2 P. 20. 
138 



Speech for Prisoner. 



MP. Sullivan 



I think you will find that that evidence runs steadily confirmed by each 
succeeding witness, and I ask you to accept that evidence as being the 
truth. The next witness dealing with the matter is the witness O'Brien 1 

I heard him say, "Now is the time for Irishmen to fight against England; 
"now is their opportunity for doing so; join the Irish Brigade." He said he came 
to form an Irish Brigade, and he wanted all Irishmen to join the Irish Brigade 
and become guests of the German army. He said that if they were successful 
in winning the war they would land the Irish Brigade, along with the German 
army, in Ireland, and they would fight against England there. If Germany did 
not win the war, then they would be sent by the German Government to America, 
with a guarantee of 5 and a situation. 

Then in cross-examination 2 

You only heard a small part of his speech? Yes. 

But in what you did hear did he speak of the Irish Brigade fighting in 
Ireland ? Yes. 

Did he say the Irish Brigade would be used in Ireland only? In Ireland. 

Did he say they were to be transferred to Ireland when Germany had won 
the war? Yes. 

And if Germany failed to win the war they should go to America? To 
America, yes. 

The next witness who deals with it is Robinson, who says in answer 
to the Lord Chief Justice 3 

He said he was very glad to see so many Irishmen here, that now was our 
time to fight for Ireland and strike a blow, and he hoped we would all join the 
Irish Brigade. 

Examination continued Did he say with whom the Irish Brigade were going 
to fight? Fight against England. He said that if Germany had a victory on the 
sea they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland ; but if Germany did not win at 
sea then we were all to go to America. 

Then in cross-examination 4 

Can you remember all he said? No. 

Or do you only remember bits? A few words or so. 

He wanted you to join an Irish Brigade ? Yes. 

Did he say that the Irish Brigade was to fight for Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say it was to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

And did he address you? Did he say it was to go to Ireland when the 
Germans had won the war? No; he said if Germany had a victory on sea. 

Did he speak about Germany winning the war? Yes. 

What did he say about Germany winning the war? He always said that 
Germany would win, but we contradicted him and said they would not. 

The next witness dealing with, it is Michael O'Connor. 5 I cannot find 
in the evidence of William Egan, who was examined, any particulars of 
the statement of Sir Roger Casement bearing on this question. 

I remember seeing Sir Roger Casement at Limburg about the end of December, 
1914. I heard him addressing some men. He said, "Now is the time for to fight 
"or strike a blow for Ireland" and that England was nearly beaten. I should 
think there were about 70 men listening to him. 

Then in crossi-examination 6 

Did you remain on the outskirts of the crowd only a few minutes? Yes. 
You stayed there as long as there was anything going on I suppose? No. 
Did you go away after a few minutes? Yes. 

You heard him say that England was nearly beaten. Did you hear him 
suggest the war was nearly over then? No, I did not. 

England was nearly beaten? He could have said it, but I did not know. 

1 P. 23. 2 P. 24. 3 P. 26. 4 P. 27. 5 P. 32. 6 P. 33. 

139 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



If England was nearly beaten, was not it in the context that the war was 
nearly over? It might have been. 

Then, whatever he was talking about, he spoke of it in the context that the 
war, at all events, was nearly over? Yes. 

Do you assent to that? I assent to that. 

The war being nearly over, he was recruiting an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

The next witness is Michael Moore 1 

Sir Roger Casement asked those men to join the Irish Brigade, I being among 
the men, and he said any man that would join the Irish Brigade he would give him 
uniform, better food and better housing. He also said in case of the Germans 
losing the war he would send those men to America, give them a free passage and 
10 or 20 pocket money, and guarantee employment in America. The Irish 
Brigade was to be sent from Limburg to a camp outside Berlin ; he said they were 
to be guests of the German Government. He also said the first German victory on 
the water he would land the Brigade in Ireland. He said what kind of victory ; 
naval victory. The Irish Brigade were to be landed in Ireland. I expect they 
were to be landed in Ireland from German vessels. I did not hear him say how 
the Irish Brigade were going to get to Ireland, but he said he would land them 
in Ireland. 

Then in cross-examination 2 

Apparently, Sir Roger Casement discussed what was to happen to the Irish 
Brigade if Germany lost the war, did not he? Yes. 

In that event the Irish Brigade would go to America? Yes. 

If Germany lost the war. I suggest to you that he said that he would land them 
in Ireland if Germany won the war? If there was a sea battle, and if Germany 
came out victorious in the first sea battle he would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland. 

Did he speak of the Irish Volunteer movement? Not to my knowledge. 

Or did he speak of the Home Rule movement in Ireland or getting Home Rule 
for Ireland? I have never heard him. 

Was there no reference to Home Rule in the event of Germany winning the 
war ; was there no reference to Home Rule ? There was one, that Germany would 
give Ireland Home Rule. 

If she won the war? If she won the war. 

But do you tell me that there was no reference to Home Rule to be won by 
the Irish Brigade ? No. 

Are you sure of that? I have never heard him say it. 

The next piece of evidence on the matter that I intend to read I am 
going back to another part of his evidence afterwards for the purpose of 
comment is the evidence of John Neill 3 

You heard him say he was the organiser of the Irish Volunteers, did not you ? Yes. 

That he was raising an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

Was it in connection with the Irish Volunteers? Yes. 

Did you hear him say that it had been subscribed for by Irish Americans in 
America ? Yes. 

And that they were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

To win Home Rule? Yes. 

Did he say fight in Ireland only? At that time only to fight in Ireland. 

That was the basis upon which they were being recruited? Yes. 

Did he say that the war was nearly over? No, he never mentioned anything 
about the war being nearly over. 

Did he speak of what might happen when the war was over? Yes. 

When the war was over, if Germany won, did he say that the Irish Brigade 
could easily be landed in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say, if Germany lost the war, on the other hand, they should go to 
America ? Yes. 

So if Germany won, they were to go to Ireland? Yes. 

And if they lost, they were to go to America? Yes. 

Was there any mention of helping them in America, whether they could get any 
money to help them along in America ? Yes. 

1 P. 33. 2 P. 34. 3 P. 42. 
140 



Speech for Prisoner. 

Mr, Sullivan 

How much ? From 10 to 20. 
If they landed in America? Yes. 

Was that speech made more than once in your presence? Only once in my 
presence. 

I will have to deal with some other matters in that witness's testi- 
mony, but I postpone that for the moment in order to read another 
overwhelming piece of evidence, namely, the circular which has been 
admitted in evidence against the prisoner 1 

Irishmen, here is a chance for you to fight for Ireland. You have fought for 
England, your country's hereditary enemy. You have fought for Belgium in 
England's interest, though it was no more to you than the Fiji Islands. Are you 
willing to fight for your own country with a view to securing the national freedom 
of Ireland? With the moral and material assistance of the German Government, 
an Irish Brigade is being formed. The object of the Irish Brigade shall be to 
fight solely the cause of Ireland, and under no circumstances shall it be directed to 
any German end. The Irish Brigade shall be formed, and shall fight under the 
Irish flag alone ; the men shall wear a special distinctively Irish uniform and have 
Irish officers. The Irish Brigade shall be clothed, fed, and efficiently equipped with 
arms and ammunition by the German Government. It will be stationed near 
Berlin and be treated as guests of the German Government. At the end of the 
war the German Government undertakes to send each member of the brigade who 
may so desire it to the United States of America with necessary means to land. 
The Irishmen in America are collecting money for the brigade. Those men who 
do not join the Irish Brigade will be removed from Limburg and distributed among 
other camps. If interested, see your company commanders. Join the Irish Brigade 
and win Ireland's independence! Remember Bachelor's Walk! God save Ireland! 

Now there, gentlemen, I pause for a moment. There is an enormous 
mass of testimony of different men speaking to different speeches, and 
many of them at different times, and a most extraordinary thing about 
it is, as far a,s I have read, Sir Roger Casement's speeches were obviously 
all of them on the same line, that the Irish Brigade was being formed, 
and would remain at Berlin under Irish officers in Irish uniform, the 
guests and not the servants of Germany. When the war was over, if 
Germany won they were to be landed in Ireland. Under no circum- 
stances were they to be asked to fight for any country except their own. 
They were to be landed in Ireland, and in Ireland alone was the Irish 
Brigade to be used if their use became necessary. All are agreed on that, 
every witness that I have read. They cannot agree as to phrases, dates, 
and matters of that kind; but there is a most extraordinary cohesion of 
separate stories told by different men that the Irish Brigade was being 
recruited on a solemn undertaking, and that they were appealed to as 
Irishmen to enter into the service of their own country, they were never 
to be the servants of any other nation, they were not to be the servants 
of Germany, and they were under no circumstances to be used for any 
German end. You will bear that in mind, because, as I told you before, 
you will see how you will have to deal with that as showing what was in 
Sir Roger Casement's mind. Oh, says the Attorney-General, the German 
Government were interested in his succeeding. What cared he? He 
was not a German. It was nothing to him what were the calculations of 
any German as to what would be the result of anything he did. It is 
relevant to inquire what might be the result, but only relevant to inquire 
that in order to ascertain what was truly in his mind, because if what 

1 See Appendix, Exhibit 4. 

141 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

he stated again and again with variations to every man who was called 
as a witness about his speeches, if that represented truly what was in 
the man's mind, I will show you, I confidently hope, that that represented 
no form of treason. I hope to justify it; if you accept that view, I hope 
to justify every word he said and every act he did. 

As against that mass of testimony there is only the evidence, or a 
portion of the evidence, of the witness, John Neill. I will read it to you 
again. I say that I hope and believe that it was as much a surprise to 
the Crown as to anybody else;. it introduces a note that absolutely contra- 
dicts everything that was said by every other witness ; more than that, it 
introduces a matter which under his own hand is contradicted by Neill 
himself, and here and here alone is the smallest suggestion upon which 
ultimately I suggest to you the Crown case may hinge, if they wish to 
rely upon such testimony. Here and here alone, I will submit to you at 
the close of my address, is the only real evidence, if real evidence such 
can be called, of any proposal ever made to any human being in the camp 
at Limburg to go and assist the German war in any shape or form 1 

He wanted to see 50 names in this book [that is to join the brigade]. He also 
said the German Government would equip the brigade with arms and ammunition 
and uniforms. He also mentioned something about pay ; he said the Irish Brigade 
would get something about from 10 to 20. 

All the witnesses are agreed when the war was over, if the resoilt was the 
Germans were beaten, the members of the brigade were to get 10 to .20 
if they wished to go to America 

He did not say where they would get that from. He also told the Irishmen on 
that Sunday that they were all to join this brigade, and that if Germany ever gained 
a naval victory they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland, and to strike a blow 
for old Ireland once again and to gain Home Rule. He also said how the Germans 
were very much like the Irish and the Irish very much like the Germans. 
Personally I did not believe that. 

So far he has confirmed, in the main, everything that has been said by 
other witnesses, and in a, later part of his evidence I have already read, 
the evidence of this same man, he has confirmed in detail everything that 
was said by every other witness. He comes back on this occasion 2 

He told the Irishmen then, when he came back, that he was very disappointed 
to see that there were no names entered in his book for this Irish Brigade, and he 
also wanted to know what were the Irishmen thinking of if they said they would 
not go and fight for their country now at this time, and that England was com- 
pletely beat, and that there was no danger of their not being landed in Ireland, and 
that he was the head man over the Irish Volunteers in Ireland, and that he was 
very proud to see how smart looking they looked, and he also hoped to see the 
Irish Brigade would soon be formed, and to go and fight for Ireland. 

So far a little more corroborative detail, perhaps, but no divergence 
from the main story told by all the other witnesses and by himself. But then 
there comes a. matter of surprise and a note that we have not heard 
before 3 

He came back in about a month after, and a clergyman, Father Nicholson, came 
there next. When Casement came back he just told these people that joined the 
Irish Brigade, when this Irish Brigade was formed they were first to go to help the 
Turks against the Russians. 

1 P. 37. 2 P. 38. 3 P. 38. 
142 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 



I will suggest to you later on, I do not know what the opinion of the 
Turks may be here, but certainly the man who went to recruit Irishmen 
to fight for the Turks deserved recognition for splendid courage. 

After he came back, Sir Roger Casement spoke to the men, in my hearing, in 
the camp in No. 1 Lines, No. 1 Company, No. 2 Battalion. He used to come into 
the barrack rooms. He made a speech in several places outside and inside in the 
barrack rooms he made these speeches. Those are the words that passed from 
Casement on this occasion. First of all, the Irish Brigade were to go and help the 
Turks against the Russians ; and secondly, they were to go and help the Germans 
against the British; and thirdly, they were to go and shed blood for their own 
native country. 

This is the first mention we have of this expansive programme, and, as 
I will show you in a minute, the witness himself had testified to totally 
different speeches in agreement with all the other witnesses, and he, 
under his own hand, gave a statement of his evidence that he was coming 
into the box to prove that, directly contradicts- what he swears when he 
gets into the box. 

I heard him say those things. I never saw Casement after that. 

Observe the answer : " I never saw him after that." Just bear that in 
mind, because in order to escape from his written statement he suggested 
that his written statement only referred to that particular day, and that 
on that particular day, or that particular evening, he did not see him, 
but that he often saw him afterwards, and, believing that he was triumph- 
ing over the foe, when re-examined by the Attorney-General, I think not 
to the Attorney-General's pleasure, he said he saw him forty-six times. 
I will turn now to his cross-examination 1 

Can you fix the date you arrived at Limburg? As far as I can go, we arrived 
at Limburg early in December, 1914. That is as near as I can go. 

How long after that did you hear this talk about the Turks ? I have heard the 
talk about the Turks several times. 

How long was that after you had arrived at Limburg? Listen, is this true, 
"Casement came back about the 1st of February, 1915." 

I was reading his own statement of his evidence to him 

Is that true? Yes. 

And Father Nicholson came at the same time. Is that true? Yes, that is true. 
Father Nicholson came there about that time. 

I suggest to you that the witness saw that he was coming into rather 
deeper water, and he commences to qualify his answers a little. 

Then that is true. Would this be true, that you saw Casement in the camp at 
this time, but he did not speak to you, and you never saw him again? Is that 
true ? At the time I never saw him. He went away. I have seen him several 
times in Limburg. 

He obviously was well aware of what was coming, I suggest to you, 
gentlemen 

On this occasion, will you fix the date of the occasion, the only occasion, so it 
should be rooted in your mind, that you heard him speak of the Turks ? I cannot 
speak to, the date that I heard him speak of the Turks because I disremember. 

He had himself fixed the date in his evidence prior to that, and he 
commences 1 to disremember it when he sees he is in difficulties. 
You disremember the dates? Yes. 
You cannot say was it early or late? I cannot say. 

1 P. 39. 

143 



Sir Roger Casement. 



MP. Sullivan 



Was it the time he came with Father Nicholson ? Yes. 

It was the time he came with Father Nicholson ? Yes, it was on his third visit. 

Did he come with Father Nicholson more than once? No. 

Did you yourself fix the date of Father Nicholson and Sir Roger Casement 
coming back to the camp as the 1st February, 1915?! did not. 

Do you remember making the statement of the evidence that you were to give ? I 
remember, yes. 

To whom did you make the statement? To some one at the War Office. 

How long ago? On the 27th May last. 

Was it taken down in writing in your presence? Yes. 

And you signed it? Yes. 

Was it true ? Well, there was a lot of it ; very nearly it all was true. 

Gentlemen, do you remember the pause when I asked him was it true ; 
can you remember it? I suggest to you that he paused a long time before 
he answered: " Well, there was a lot of it, very nearly it all was true." 
That was a very carefully considered answer. 

Am I to understand there was a lot of it that was not true ? You are not to 
understand there was a lot of it that was not true. 

Was it all true? Yes, it was all true. My statement I gave there, yes, it 
was all true, only I did not give them all my statement ; I forgot something, but 
brought a lot of it back to my memory since then. 

Listen to the statement that was all true at the time: "Casement came back 
"about the 1st February, 1915, and Father Nicholson came at the same time." 
Was that true? Yes, that was true. 

About the 1st February, 1915? I cannot fix the date, you know. 

Did you fix the date ? To the best of my opinion it was about that time he 
came there. 

Then, reading again from his statement, I say " When Casement came 
" back we were marched up to barrack No. 41 by sections as usual, and 
" Quinless told us " then there is the statement about the Turks coming 
from Quinless, that Casement had told him to tell the Irish Brigade about 
the Turks 

Did you say that? Yes. 
Was that true? Yes. 

The statement is further read ; that is not what Sir Roger Casement told 
him at all, but somebody else told him, and said it was Sir Roger Case- 
ment said he was to be told; that is a very different story. Then it is 
read to him again : " ' I saw Casement in the camp at this time ' 
" this was about the 1st February, 1915, when he came back with Father 
" Nicholson ' but he did not speak to me. I never saw him again/ : 
Observe, he had sworn in his direct evidence, before I cross-examined him 
about his statement, that after this day, whatever be the date, he never 
saw Sir Roger Qasement again. Then he says it and repeats it, or, rather, 
it is read out to him from his statement that he had given, taken down 
in writing, and had signed on the 27th May " I saw Casement in the 
" camp at this time, but he did not speak to me. I never saw him 
" again/' That was in the written statement; he is asked " Was it 
" true? " and he says, " On the previous evening I did not see him." 
Then I say 

Let me give it to you again : "I saw Casement in the camp at this time " this was 
about the 1st February, 1915, when he came back with Father Nicholson "but he did 
"not speak to me. I never saw him again." Is that true? He did not speak to me 
on that evening. I did not see him, he went away out of that camp on that evening, 
but I saw him afterwards. I did not see him again on that evening. 

144 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Having on the 27th May dictated that evidence, that after that 
day he never saw Sir Roger Casement again, having in answer to the 
Solicitor-General sworn that never after that speech, conversation, or 
whatever it was, did he see Sir Roger Casement again, he now states 
that he did not see him that evening. He says, " He went away out of 
" the camp on that evening, but I saw him afterwards. I did not see 
" him again on that evening/' I read again to him what he said " I 
" never saw him again." That is what he stated was going to be his 
evidence. Then he answers, " On that evening." Then I say 1 

Was it true? I will go further. "I heard that he gave an address to the 
"Munsters in their barracks, and that they shouted him down. I could hear the 
"shouting going on." Do not you see you are pointing the fact that you never saw 
him again, although you heard he was in a different part of the camp? On that 
evening he did address the Munster Fusiliers in the barracks. 

But you were not there? I was not in the lines. 

You could only hear shouting? He was a free man in Germany and could go 
about where he liked. 

Follow me again. I will give you every opportunity of understanding. Was 
it true, of the 1st February occasion, that he came to the camp with Father 
Nicholson, you saw him in the camp, but he did not speak to you, and you never 
saw him again? On that evening I never saw him again, but he was in the camp 
several times afterwards, and I saw him in the camp. I never saw him again on 
that evening. 

You heard he gave an address to the Munsters, and could hear the shouting? 
Yes. 

But you never saw him? On that evening after. 

Will you give me the date you next saw him? He was in the camp every 
day, I might say. 

By this time he has parted from the statement he never saw him after 
the occasion in question; the statement that he saw him several times 
afterwards, and we have the statement that he might say that he saw 
him every day afterwards. " But only once with Father Nicholson." 
That was about the 1st February. Then he is cross-examined about it 
again 2 

If he did not speak to you that day, he could not have said anything about 
the Turks or Russians or anything else? He spoke about the Turks and Russians, 
and also left orders with this man that joined the Irish Brigade to tell the Irishmen 
that joined the brigade i^i,' a i 

Are you telling us what you heard him say, or repeating what somebody else 
told you ; what is it ? I am telling you now about him, what he said. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Who is "he"? Sir Roger Casement. 

By Mr. SULLIVAN Was it what he said in your presence ? In my presence and in 
the presence of about 50 more of our men that when they joined this Irish Brigade 
they were to go and help the Turks against the Russians on the Turkish frontier, 
then after that they were to go and help the Germans against the British, and then 
after that they were to go and shed blood for their own native country. 

And after that? He said no more then. He said that in the presence of my 
comrades and myself. 

Then he is asked about the Volunteer movement, and so forth. But 
you see, gentlemen, that witness is the only witness who gives an account 
of a speech which, if delivered, contradicts every single word that Sir 
Roger Casement had ever said in the presence of any other human being, 
and contradicts every other speech that this witness heard him make. 

1 P. 40. 2 P. 41. 

L 145 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Being, I suggest to you, a little worn by his cross-examination, the 
learned Attorney- General re-examined him to re-establish hie credit, and 
observe the questions that were put to him to give him an opportunity of 
explaining how he came to have so many variations of the same thing 1 
How many times do you think you saw Casement altogether? 

Of course, the witness might confuse either one person with another, 
or one visit with another, or something of that kind, if he was in a con- 
fused state, in which a thing was happening two or three or four times, 
and he might pick out one occasion rather than another, but the witness 
was evidently under the impression that he had not sworn to enough visits 
of Sir Roger Casement. 

How many times do you think you saw Casement altogether? I have seen him 
a lot of times. 

About how many ? I disremember how many times ; he was there so often in 
that camp. 

How long were you there? I was there for seven months. 

Was he there at intervals ? He was there the first time I landed at Limburg. 

How many times not exactly but roughly, do you think you heard him 
speak? I have heard him speak several times, for every time he was in the camp 
he was all the time talking. 

Three, four, or six times, or how many? Nearer forty-six times. 

This is the only witness who gave testimony to a state of affairs which 
I most confidently ask you not to believe. On every other occasion this 
man, whatever you think of his politics and his views of public affairs, 
had made the only appeal that I have ever heard made to any of my country- 
men, to invite to take up arms on any occasion, an appeal that has recruited 
a quarter of a million of them to the Colours at the present moment, that 
they should take up arms to fight for Ireland, and I would most respect- 
fully subscribe to the doctrine that no Irishman has a right to take 
up arms or risk his life for any cause that is not in the service of Ireland. 

Gentlemen, the event upon which, and upon which alone, the transfer 
of these troops 1 to Ireland was to take place has not yet happened, even on 
the most grim view of Admiralty despatches. There are these men remain- 
ing in idleness in Germany. You never catch a glimpse of them afterwards, 
except to hear that they still walk about Limburg in the new and perhaps 
somewhat gaudy uniform. No one has seen them marching or counter- 
marching, or even indulging in sham fights under the command of any 
German officer. They have never appeared in arms 1 to the detriment of any 
one of His Majesty's subjects, and, accordingly, I ask you to believe that 
what was done there never in fact afforded the smallest military aid or 
any other aid or comfort to the German Government; but if you will 
believe what is far more important, whether he is right or wrong in what 
he did, that the man who sought to recruit them honestly asked them to 
join in a cause which was to be the service of their own country, and their 
own country alone, and repudiate any idea that whatever benefit any other 
country may have thought they would gain, or wished they would gain, out 
of such a transaction, his motive and his intention were clean and clear, 
that he, at all events, would be no party to his countrymen being used 
at the risk of their lives in any cause that was not the cause of their own 
land. There is suggested, and I do submit to you it is a mean and im- 

i P. 42. 
146 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 



proper suggestion, that in some way the prisoner at the bar was responsible 
for rations being reduced in the prison camp in Germany at the end 
of February, a reduction made in the amount of bread, a couple of months 
afterwards I think the date was fixed in April, but at the moment I forget 
it a reduction in the quality of their rations, and the substitution for 
potatoes of some other food. The man who testified to it testified to this, 
that at the time of these reductions Sir Roger Casement was not in the 
camp, but that the recruiting went on after the reduction of rations as 
before it. No man was ever threatened, no man that came before you was 
ever threatened with reduction of rations if he did not do what Sir Roger 
Casement asked him to do. Those who joined were liberated from the 
camp, they were better clothed, and I have no doubt they were better fed 
than the ordinary prisoner. No man has testified in this Court to any 
whisper of a threat from any human being that his rations would be 
reduced if he did not comply with the request of Sir Roger Casement, 
but it was said that after Sir Roger Casement's visits rations were in fact 
reduced, and if they were not, gentlemen, you would not think much of 
your Navy. If rations are not reduced in Germany, you might as well 
scuttle your ships. Of course, when you are dealing with a people in the 
position of the Germans, the first who will feel the pinch of hunger if 
supplies run short in Germany, you may be perfectly sure, will be the 
soldiers who had fought against the Germans. Are you to believe when 
rations are reduced I do not suppose it can be all a joke to suggest 
that they are pretty short of some foodstuffs in Germany when rations 
are reduced in a country in which, gentlemen, we have reason to believe 
food is not so plentiful or as cheap as you may thank God it is in your own 
country, is it creditable to attribute to this man in the dock the mean 
and malicious motives that any failure on his part to achieve his object 
amongst these men who, whether they agree with him or disagree with 
him, are his countrymen that he was any party to starving them in order 
to vindicate his own conceit and his self-sufficiency? Is there any evidence 
of anything so mean or ignoble about what he has said or done if the 
version of what he has said and done be as I ask you to believe it has 
been established to be? Is that consistent with the mind of a man who 
out of petty spitefulness and wickedness would starve 2500 men because 
some few or many of them declined to oblige him in one of his political 
projects; is that the opinion you have of him? Is humanity so mean and 
so small that the man with the talk of high principles, the talk of patriotism 
that my learned friend scorns, behind the backs of those who do not listen 
is intriguing that they will linger on in starvation, and merely because 
they have not listened to him? I ask you to scout that from your minds 
and not to allow your judgments which have to be exercised upon what I 
submit to you are broad issues in this case, for, believe me, you will 
not find me pettifogging do not let your judgment be warped by insinua- 
tions of this kind, which have not found expression in any clear-cut charge 
from the lips of any human being that I have heard speak in this Court. 

I have dealt with the evidence of what happened in Limburg, at all 
events, with so much of the evidence as has occurred to me to be the 
material portions for the themes upon which I shall have to address you 
later. I come now to the evidence from Ireland to see how it affects the 

147 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



prisoner. Gentlemen, I wish you clearly to understand there is not in this 
case any allegation against Sir Roger Casement of the commission of any 
illegality in that part of His Majesty's United Kingdom called Ireland. This 
Court has no cognisance of such. If he has offended in that part of the 
realm, in that part of the realm let him be adjudged and tried before the 
community against whom he may be supposed to have sinned; but, so 
far as this case is concerned, there is no allegation in this case triable 
before you, that Sir Roger Casement, in fact, committed any illegal 
act within Ireland. He was charged, though no evidence was given of 
the charge here, and could not be given of the charge here, for you could 
not try it here he was charged, which was the high-water mark of the 
guilt alleged against him there, we have it in evidence, with breach of the 
regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and nothing more, 
and the breach of the regulations with which he was charged was that, 
contrary to those regulations, he landed in Ireland those three pistols and 
that box of ammunition. That represents, so far as we have heard, a charge 
formulating the high-water mark of his Irish illegality. But you cannot 
inquire into anything connected with his movements in Ireland save so far 
as they are relevant to the charges made of the acts he has alleged to have 
committed in Germany, for in the indictment upon which he stands 
arraigned he is not charged with doing anything illegal in any other portion 
of the world's surface than in the Empire of Germany, and therefore it is 
that I have put in the forefront of my address the consideration of the 
German evidence, because on the German evidence I will submit to you 
the case must stand or fall. He arrived in Ireland, and, a I suppose we 
may take cognisance of the fact that Ireland is an island, I presume he 
travelled over the sea. He is found in Ireland near a lonely strand, 
eome place 10 or 12 miles west of the town of Tralee. 

A,s I understand the Crown's case with regard to the Irish witnesses, 
they are really seeking to deal with the sixth paragraph of the overt acts 
alleged in the indictment against the prisoner. As you have heard it 
read to you, you will perhaps remember that he was charged with setting 
out from Germany, in order to carefully keep every treasonable act charged 
outside the realm of England, and I venture to suggest outside also that 
part of His Majesty's Kingdom called Ireland, and well within the frontiers 
of the German Empire, and the Crown do not allege that outside of the 
German Empire Sir, Roger Casement committed any overt act connected 
with the treason charged here, namely, connected with his recruiting for 
the German Army, for that is the plain meaning of what they suggest 
against him. There was given in evidence a peculiar fact, the bearing of 
which I am at a loss now to understand because we have got the details. 
I nearly called him a seaman, but a signaller on board the sloop " Blue- 
" bell " was examined, and he has told you that on the 21st of April, 
at half -past six in the evening, the " Bluebell " sighted a steamer in the 
Atlantic Ocean. The Attorney- General, in opening the case, stated that 
it was somewhere near Tralee, but it now appears from the evidence of 
Signaller Waghorn that this steamer was in the Atlantic Ocean at a point 
which is very easily defined, because it is about 138 miles from Daunt's 
Rock and it is about 90 miles from the land, and I think there can be no 
148 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 



doubt that that represents a position, roughly speaking, 90 miles south 
of Cape Clear, on the south coast of Ireland. Tralee is on the west of 
Ireland ; Tralee Bay is a large indentation running almost down east and 
west, and you see from the map if you look down the bay you look almost 
straight at the setting sun. The ship is found in the Atlantic Ocean, 
90 miles off Cape Clear, which is on the south coast of Ireland, and how 
is she heading? You gather that from the explanation that the ship 
attempted to give of her own motion, because whether it was true or false, 
and some of it was certainly false, you will probably be of opinion that 
her captain told no more lies than were necessary, and none that were 
inconsistent, when he stated that he was bound from Bergen to Genoa 
as being the explanation of his position in the ocean and the course that he 
was steering. It would hardly be of any use to represent to one of His 
Majesty's sloops of war that you were bound from Bergen to Genoa if 
the course you were steering would bring you into the Bristol Channel or 
any other direction than the track by which you could reach Genoa. 
Accordingly, you may take it as reasonably well-established, that at 6.30 
that evening this ship was travelling in a direction which was leaving 
Ireland further and further away from her; she was 90 miles from the 
south coast of Ireland, and not anywhere in the neighbourhood of Tralee. 
It was because of that that I attempted to make some objection to the 
evidence of the witness, because, gentlemen, there is no connection what- 
ever between Sir Roger Casement at M'Kenna's Fort, 12 miles west of 
Tralee, on the west coast of Ireland, and a ship apparently heading for 
the Straits of Gibraltar, 90 miles from the south coast of Ireland. I 
do not understand that it is suggested that perhaps Sir Roger Casement 
travelled by this ship; that can hardly be the suggestion. It would be 
a peculiar suggestion that apparently this ship, coming down the west 
coast of Ireland on her course from Bergen to the Straits, threw him over- 
board with two companions in that cockleshell of a boat of which you 
saw the picture, and let them shift for themselves; that is hardly the 
suggestion; but certain it is that all that we know of this ship in the 
present caise is that she was found at 6.30 on the 21st April out in the 
middle of the Atlantic, far out of sight of land, on a course which 
the captain, at all events, hoped would be believed to be the course 
to Genoa, when he told the " Bluebell " that that was where he was 
making for. She had on board a number of rifles, and we have had an 
interesting discussion upon what rifles they are, the pattern they are, 
the pattern of the cartridges, the cartridge clips, and the bayonet case; 
the strange thing being, as far as I recollect, that these articles were of 
different nationalities. One was Russian, another was South American, 
the cartridge clips, I think, were Russian; the cartridges could not be 
identified as being any definite cartridge that fits the Russian gun. How 
that ship, whose fate we know, can in any way be brought into our story 
in connection with Sir Roger Casement, I have no idea, because the state- 
ment upon which the story was introduced by the Attorney-General has 
certainly not been verified, that off Tralee and in the neighbourhood of 
Sir Roger Casement this mysterious ship was seen and captured. We 
know, in fact, that she wasi nowhere in the neighbourhood of Tralee 
at all. 

149 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Now, gentlemen, I pass from a consideration of the evidence to etate 
to you what I know you will listen to with attention, what is the explana- 
tion of what these men have testified to? Gentlemen, one gets in the 
habits of phrase from the country and the neighbourhood in which one 
lives. I presume, and it is perfectly evident, that an Englishman speaks 
of this Empire under the name of England, an Irishman calls his own 
country by its own name, so does a Scotchman, and, I think the habit 
also prevails in Wales. I want you to understand the position that Ire- 
land bears towards your country, because a great deal of the present 
case, and the explanation of the present case, depends upon your forming 
a perfectly true, proper, and just appreciation of the position of Ireland 
with regard to yourselves. I think the Attorney-General spoke of Sir 
Roger Casement's services to England. Sir Roger Casement wasi not in 
the service of England. Sir Roger Casement was in the service of the 
United Kingdom; he was in the service of His Majesty in respect of the 
whole Empire of His Majesty's Dominion. In Ireland you have not only a 
separate people, you have a separate country. An Irishman's loyalty is 
loyalty to Ireland, and it would be a very sorry day for the Empire when 
loyalty to one's own native land should be deemed to be treason in a 
sister country. There is no English authority in Ireland, however 
improperly for the isake of political factions the name of your country may 
be invoked. No English official exercises the smallest authority when he 
crosses the Channel. Those who hold high offices here have no position 
or no official position in Ireland. His Majesty, under the Act of Union, 
in fact, exercises the right preserved by the articles of the Treaty, and 
he appoints his Irish officers under the great seal of Ireland. No person 
has any constitutional right in Ireland to seek to bully or dictate to any 
Irishman in the name of any other section of His Majesty's United 
Kingdom. We are your fellow-citizens, but by no means your inferiors 
or your slaves. You respect our rights in Ireland as we should respect 
yours, but when you step inside that part of His Majesty's Kingdom, 
His Majesty rules there not by any title of King of your land, but in respect 
of his title as King and ruler of the United Kingdom. 

Gentlemen, if in Ireland you cannot find within the constitution 
anything that has any right to call itself England, in the conduct of Irish 
affairs, you will then ask yourselves what was there in Ireland in 1914 
and 1915 purporting to act in the name of England that required to be 
fought to secure Home Rule. I would be most unwilling to say anything 
that might in the slightest degree seem to be trespassing or infringing on 
the opinions of any person in this Court or outside it, but you will have 
to answer that question, and look back and seek to find upon the evidence 
what was the power that called itself England in Ireland in 1914, for, 
as I have already pointed out, under the constitution there is no English 
power in Ireland. You have got a glimpse from two or three or four 
witnesses of the state of affairs existing in that country, almost within 
gunshot of your own country, that casts a reflection and a disgrace upon 
our civilisation. It is a dreadful thing, gentlemen, a dreadful thing to 
contemplate that any one within the King's peace in any part of his 
United Kingdom should be subjected to the bullying and intimidation 
150 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 



and threat of armed force to be exercised against the liberties secured 
to him by the constitution and by the Parliament of Great Britain and 
Ireland ; and yet that was the state of affairs in Ireland as you see by the 
evidence. What was the necessity of arming men in Ireland? As 
one witness says, to secure Home Rule, another to free Ireland, another 
to secure the freedom of Ireland. To protect the liberties of Ireland 
against whom had you to arm? Was there in Ireland in those years an 
armed body which most improperly used the name of your country behind 
which to shelter the invasion of the liberties secured to Irishmen under 
the constitution? You have evidence that there was, unless indeed you 
believe, being constitutionally ignorant in this Court of what barbarous 
law may in fact prevail beyond the Channel unless indeed you would 
assume from the immunity with which armed bands paraded the country 
north and south for the avowed purpose of attacking one another sooner 
or later, unless you believe from their immunity that these things may 
be done under the laws in Ireland, and that we who desire to live at 
peace and to possess what we are entitled to, our own opinions, may not 
form them in Ireland save at the bayonet's point of some faction or other. 
Does not that show you in one gleam what it was that Sir Roger Casement 
was doing in Limburg when he recruited the Irish Brigade ? Observe the 
state of affairs as you have it proved in evidence. There was in the north 
of Ireland an armed body of men ostensibly marching about, as Robinson 
proves, in Belfast, deliberately originated with the avowed object of resist- 
ing the operation of an Act of Parliament which had the approval of the 
rest of the country. They armed, and nothing was said to them; they 
drilled, and nothing was said to them; they marched and countermarched; 
the authorities stood by and looked at them. The police were power- 
loss. They had great forces behind them, great names and men of high 
position. Imagine the feeling in the country testified to, reaching as far 
south as what we anciently called the Kingdom of Kerry, now County 
Kerry. To the County of Kerry, in dread of these men, there came a 
rumour of the police being powerless, the civil power being paralysed, 
the civil Government practically abdicated there came a rumour that all 
that stood between peace and the rifles of those men, His Majesty's Army, 
might not perhaps be relied upon. 

What are you to do when, after years of labour, your representatives 
may have won something that you yearn for, for many a long day, won it 
under the constitution, had it guaranteed by the King and the Commons, 
and you are informed that you should not possess it because those that 
disliked it were arming to resist the King and Commons and to blow 
the statute off the book with powder? The civil police could not protect 
you, and the military force would perhaps prove inadequate for your 
support. You may lie down under it, but if you are men, to arms; 
when all else faik defend yourself. If the civil government will not 
protect you, if the constabulary cannot secure your rights, if you cannot 
rely upon brigades, the ultimate resort for any man in the protection 
of his constitutional freedom is to stand with arms in his hands, and if 
a civil government can be terrorised into obtaining his rights, try if his 

151 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

attitude will not inspire them with sufficient reispect to do what is right 
without fear, favour, or affection. 

That, gentlemen, is the case that I present to you on behalf of Sir 
Roger Casement; that is the explanation of everything that he has done. 
What is to be said against him? Gentlemen, this condition of affairs had 
indeed been reached prior to this war that has broken out with the Empire 
of Germany. There was indeed an understanding and a convention 
between the greater leaders of these factions arming and counter-arming 
that for a while, while the danger to the Empire existed, this dreadful 
state of affairs should be put an end to ; that, in the meantime, faith has 
been kept let us all thank Providence, for it enabled my countrymen in 
the service of Ireland, for they are serving the glorious traditions of their 
own land, to write their names in every battlefield in Europe, a thing 
that would have been impossible without such understanding. Do not 
imagine, though you may live in a great city of the Empire, that you can 
sneer at the loyal patriotism of these men. We recruited none of them to 
fight for England ; no man ever made such an appeal as that to an Irish 
audience. Each man went forth believing that in serving in this war, 
serving the Empire, he was in truth rendering the best service he could 
to his own little country. But how about at home? If you are indeed to 
scrutinise the intention of Sir Roger Casement in what he did abroad, 
not by what he intended or what was passing in his mind, but the profit 
the German politicians might calculate that they might ultimately get out 
of it, you might go back and find that German calculations do not all come 
right, for you might well think that the enterprising commercial country 
that filled Ulster with Mausers in 1914 expected a better dividend than 
she got. The truce was kept in the main, but, gentlemen, not a single 
rifle was given up. As we have heard from the witnesses, so far from 
armaments ceasing, on the 16th August the sole obstacle to the importa- 
tion of arms into Ireland was dropped immediately after the outbreak of 
the war. No arms were given up more arms were coming in. The 
only security for peace, for real and permanent peace in any country, is 
such confidence in the administration of justice as will cause men to 
feel that they run no risk that requires their bearing arms in any part of 
His Majesty's dominions. Well, the arms were still there, the purpose 
still undisavowed. The truce was on the face of it but a temporary 
arrangement, a postponement of the threat of bloodshed and outrage 
which was promised to the country when the war was over; and can you 
blame that there were found in Ireland fortunately a minority of Irishmen 
who thought, and, so far as formula goes, they thought right, that their 
first duty of loyalty was to the land of their birth, but who thought 
that she was still in danger while the country remained divided in armed 
camps, and there was only to be postponed until the war ended the time 
when Ireland was to become the foundation for two hells? Many may 
have thought so honestly and loyally; we who differ from them have no 
right to criticise their judgment because we disagree with it. They have 
a right to think, and such men have a right if in their judgment the 
country was in such danger, that it was better to stay at home and 
152 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 

provide against this ultimate happening than it was to go forth and serve 
in the Irish Brigades ; men have a right to think that, and in view of the 
dreadful state of affaire which you have established in evidence before you, 
how can you blame a man for thinking that? And accordingly there were 
found men who, distrusting the truce proclaimed in Ireland, seeing that 
one man would observe his neighbour had not given up his rifle, another 
that another had got a new gun, he would arm himself, and one by one 
in small quantities you have the danger of the arms still coming in, and 
people fearing that the truce was not real, and that any moment there 

might break out 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Where is there evidence of this? 
Mr. SULLIVAN The evidence of the sergeant and the evidence of 
Robinson. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Of what you are now saying? 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I was most loath to intervene, but I have 
heard a great many statements which are wholly uncorroborated. 
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have the right to intervene. 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Statements as to the importation of rifles 
into the north of Ireland. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We have allowed you very great latitude. 
I confess for myself I have found it rather difficult not to intervene on 
several occasions, and I intervene at this moment because I think you 
are stating matter which is not in evidence or which I have no recollection 
of being stated in evidence. I know the general passages to which you 
refer. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am exceedingly sorry your lordship did not inter- 
vene isooner; I was referring to the evidence of Sergeant Hearn. I am 
exceedingly sorry I have gone outside what I ought, but what I was 
referring to was this 1 

Do you remember in 1914, before the war, the Arms Proclamation? Yes. 

As an officer of the Constabulary were you concerned in acting under it for a 
while? Yes. 

Prior to that had there been considerable importation of arms? Yes. 

Was it in consequence of what happened in the north of Ireland that the 
people were arming so far south as Tralee? I could not say that. 

Did they, at all events, purport to be arming? They did. 

As against the armed persons in the north of Ireland ? Yes. 

Were they bearing arms openly? They were. 

Without interference by the public authorities? Yes. 

And actually on the outbreak of war was the proclamation against the 
importation of arms withdrawn on the 16th August? Yes, that is so. 

And your directions, even so far as they went to interfere with the importation 
of arms, ceased on the 16th August on the withdrawal of the proclamation for the 
time being? Yes. 

And the arming of the population went on then unrestricted for a while ? Yes. 

And the parade of arms uninterfered with by any authority? Yes. 

People drilling? Yes. 

Marching ? Yes. 

Skirmishing through the country? Yes. 

Without any action taken on behalf of the police? This arming, of course, 
commenced before the war, did it not? Yes it did. 

It commenced some time in 1913, in the south, did it not? Yes. 

1 P. 49. 

153 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

It had commenced earlier in the north? Yes. 

Was there a great deal of excitement in the south with regard to the reports of 
what was going on in the north of Ireland? There was. 

I suppose at the police barracks, even in Ardfert, they read the papers? Yes. 

Then the papers are referred to. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If you look at the question I put, I think 
it brings home the point of my intervention now. I put to you the 
question after you had gone through this matter : " Are you speaking of 
" before or after the war? " and your answer was, " Before the war." 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is iso with regard to that evidence. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No doubt you stated it quite rightly. You 
have stated the effect of the facts before the war, and there has been no 
intervention, but what you are dealing with now apparently is the period 
some time after the war; the period with which we have to deal is 1915; 
that is what we are dealing with. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is this question. 1 

In that state of affairs, having neither police nor military competent to protect 
one, it was left to people in Ireland to protect themselves ; is not that the truth of 
it? Generally speaking it is. 

Generally speaking that was the truth of it? Now, as you say, when the war 
broke out the Arms Proclamation was withdrawn and the arming went on as 
before? Yes. 

And continued right up to last month? Yes. 

Except so far as hampered by the Defence of the Realm Regulations ? Yes. 

I was under the impression I was referring to that. I am sorry if 
I transgressed, and regret that the rein was not applied to it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I felt so anxious* not to intervene when you 
were making your speech, and, of course, doing the best you could for 
your client, but you were dealing with matters which not only were not 
stated in evidence but with regard to which I will say nothing more. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I pass from that at once. If I have been carried away 
too far, I am exceedingly sorry. All that I was trying to lay the foundation 
for was in view of the condition of affairs existing at the outbreak of the 
war, to ask you to consider what then might be the explanation after the 
outbreak of the war, and the condition at the close of the war of the 
prisoner at the bar, because we are all agreed I mean nearly all the 
witnesses are agreed that the prisoner at the bar frequently referred in 
Limburg to the fact that the war was coming to a close. When the war 
was over the Irish Brigade was to> be used in Ireland, and used in Ireland, 
one witness used the phrase, to secure Home Rule, others said to free 
Ireland, others said to secure the freedom of Ireland. 

I suggest to you the inference to be drawn isi that the Irish Brigade 
moving to Ireland after the war it was recruited, according to a number 
of these witnesses, in connection with the Volunteer movement in Ireland 
you should come to the conclusion that the intention expressed by Sir 
Roger Casement was the intention of using the Irish Brigade in Ireland 
in connection with the Irish Volunteer movement, which, as you 
heard, had been recruiting in Ireland before the war. Now is that a 
reasonable suggestion? Is not it what he said? What other explanation 
can you give of the terms that he used? Under what circumstances were 

1 P. 51. 
154 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Irishmen to fight in Ireland, under Irish officers 1 For no German purpose. 
Whether you use it to free Ireland, to secure Home Rule, or for any other 
purpose mentioned, what other explanation is there, except it was in con- 
nection, as was stated in Limburg by a number of witnesses, with the 
Irish Volunteer movement? I intended to go no further than that, and 
I intended to test whether that involved any of the charges made in the 
present case. In that event there isi no military aid to Germany; none 
whatever. However much Germany might like to see, after the war, or 
at any other time, a precipitation of a state of affairs in which there 
should be armed camps in any part of His Majesty's dominions, that is not 
the view put forward by Sir Roger Casement to the Irish Brigade. It was 
not to please Germany that he sought to recruit. He purported to 
recruit them in order to serve their own country. Isi there any other way 
in which he could fulfil his pledge? Where else could he use them in 
connection with the Irish Volunteer movement or in connection with any 
Home Rule controversy? Where else could he use them for, whatever you 
call it, the freedom of Ireland or of freeing Ireland? In Ireland alone 
they were to fight ; under Irish officer they were to fight. The documents 
are perfectly specific on that point, and, accordingly, I do most earnestly 
impress upon your consideration, that in view of the state of affairs at 
the commencement of the war, going no further than that, is there not a 
perfectly proper and reasonable explanation of what it was desirable to 
provide for at the conclusion of the war? The matters that I have spoken 
of had occurred since Sir Roger Casement left the Consular Service. They 
would explain the position. As I say, those matters had occurred since 
Sir Roger Casement left the Consular Service. [After a, pause.] I 
regret, my lord, to say that I have completely broken down. 

The LORD CEIEF JUSTICE Then, of course, we will adjourn until 
to-morrow morning. 

The Court adjourned. 



155 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Fourth Day Thursday, 29th June, 1916. 

Mr. ABTEMTJS JONES My lords, I regret to say that my learned leader 
is in a condition this morning which doe not permit of his appearance in 
Court. I have just seen him. He is in consultation with his medical 
adviser, and the effect of the advice is that he must not go on. In these 
circumstances will your lordships grant me the indulgence of allowing me 
to conclude his speech and deal with the points he has not quite covered 1 

The LORD CEIEF JUSTICE Yes, certainly. I am sorry Mr. Sullivan is 
not able to be here; it was obvious that he was labouring under a strain 
yesterday afternoon. Will you kindly proceed with his address? 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES If your lordship pleases. Gentlemen of the 
jury, the responsibility of defending a man in a criminal Court is always 
a serious responsibility for the counsel who appear for him, and when the 
charge against him is a capital charge, and is one which involves the dread 
issue of life or death, that responsibility becomes still greater and heavier. 
Rising as I do in these circumstances 1 to resume the speech made by my 
learned leader, Mr. Sullivan, yesterday, I hope that you will grant to me 
the same measure of sympathetic hearing, at any rate, which you have 
been good enough to give him. 

Now, let me, if I may, resume my learned leader's argument at the 
point where he left off yesterday. Mr. Sullivan was pointing out to 
you that the evidence called by the prosecution with reference to these 
acts of high treason which it is siaid he committed in Germany was quite 
consistent with an entirely different view of the case; that is to say, 
the view of an Irishman, a loyal and patriotic Irishman, who, stirred to 
the depths by events, of which there is evidence in this case already, 
which had taken place in Ireland in 1913, had in the midst of this great 
war gone to Germany, not for the purpose of helping Germany to fight 
England, but for the purpose of forming an Irish Brigade to strive for 
something they had a right to strive for, the protection of their country- 
men if they were coerced or tyrannised by armed forces in Ireland which 
were not controlled by the Executive Government. I suggest, with all 
respect to my lord, that it is open for you to form that view of the case on 
the evidence as it istands. Gentlemen, let me, if I may, answer the 
question which was addressed to you by the learned Attorney-General in his 
opening speech. He commented, as he had a right to do, upon the dis- 
tinguished record which Sir Roger Casement enjoyed in the service of this 
great Empire. He had played a part, as the Attorney-General said, in con- 
solidating the Empire in one sense, that in different parts of the Empire 
he had been trying to do his best in the responsible position he occupied. 
In the year 1911 he retired on a pension, which, as Sir Roger Casement said, 
he had honourably earned, and with a title, which it was not in his 
power to refuse, which his Sovereign conferred upon him. As the learned 
Attorney-General asked yesterday, what had happened since 1911 to 
convert that loyal and dutiful son of the Empire into the traitor which the 
Crown wishes you to believe that he is? What had happened? That 
was the question which the Attorney-General asked, and I promise to give 
the learned Attorney-General his answer in the evidence which has been 
156 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Artemus Jones 



already given, namely, the speeches which the sergeant of police has 
already said in evidence that he had read, read in the south of Ireland, and 
which, as he said, were being circulated all over Ireland. Let me read 
the state of feeling there at that time " What he would urge upon them 
" was that they should go forward in the same solemnity as that with which 
" they devoted themselves in the cause of Protestantism when they signed 
" the covenant twelve months ago. Their leaders asked them to run no 
" risk and to do no deed which they on their part were not prepared to 
"run and to do." 

The LOED CHIEF JUSTICE Was this read in the evidence? There 
were some passages that were read, but I do not remember that part of it. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES I beg your lordship's pardon; your lordship 
remembers certain passages were marked in ink. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE' Some parts undoubtedly were read. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES It may be that I have not begun at the right 
point. The part I did read out was the part coming within the two 
black lines, which were marked at the time and shown to the witness, if 
your lordship will remember. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE As I recollect the evidence, this was all a 
little irregular, but, of course, was permitted ; at any rate, it was permitted 
by us for the defence, but the witness certainly did not say he remembered 
seeing those newspapers at all. What he did say was that he remembered 
words somewhat to the effect that were suggested by Mr. Sullivan, and we 
allowed those passages to be read. I think if you are going to read other 
parts of the speech it becomes a very different proceeding. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES I only intended to read those passages that 
appear in the shorthand notes. The mistake I made was in picking up 
the newspaper and reading the passages marked in black ink. I read it 
on the assumption that it represented all that appeared in the shorthand 
notes, Let me draw your lordship's attention to the passages. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I do not want to take any unnecessary 
objection, but I should like references to be made to the answers of the 
witnesses upon which this argument is based. It is a strange way to 
prove that a speech was made by asking a witness in a criminal case 
whether he read a report, even if he said he read that report. My 
recollection of the answer is that the only answer made by the witness was 
he read something to that effect. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is how I understood it, and that is 
what I was pointing out to Mr. Jones. Strictly, it was irregular, but 
it was a latitude allowed to the defence because they might have been in a 
difficulty in getting strict proof ; and it was not objected to by the Crown, 
for that reason no doubt. Therefore I think it is that we must confine 
it to the precise questions and answers which were obtained. At most it 
comes to this, that speeches to that effect were issued ; that is all. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The question arises, if the only answer was 
that a speech to that effect was made, how far that justifies the reading of 
what purports to be a newspaper report as showing exactly what was said 
which was never read out to the witness at all. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE All that I think is properly admissible is what 
Mr. Artemus Jones is proposing to read, the precise words put to the 
witness in the question and accepted by him as words to that effect. 

157 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Artemus Jones 



Mr. ARTEMUS JONES I ain obliged to your lordship. One eminent 
judge once observed that a thing most notorious outside a Court of law 
was the thing most difficult to prove inside a Court of law. I only propose 
now to read to you the passages in which Mr. Sullivan questioned the 
police sergeant as to whether he saw statements there being made which, 
as the sergeant said, were influencing the minds of peasantry and people 
in other parts of Ireland. 

I will read the whole of the cross-examination to meet the observation 
properly made by the Attorney-General 1 

What is your headquarters? Tralee. 

How long are you stationed in Tralee? Five years. 

I suppose you read the papers ? Sometimes. 

What paper do you read ? Anything I can get hold of the Irish Times, the 
Independent. 

The Irish Times is the one that you take for preference, I think? Yes. 

I want to know whether you read the Irish Times of July 14th, 1913. I can 
give you a copy to look at. (Newspaper handed to witness)? I could not tell you. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am not sure you quite appreciated what I 
said; you need not trouble to read all the introductory passage. I think 
you are entitled, and I so stated, to read the particular passages read to 
the Court from the newspapers as they appear here. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES If your lordship pleases. 2 

"We can rely not only on thousands but tens of thousands of people in England 
"who are prepared to assist us." There was any amount of that sort of speaking 
going on ? In the papers. 

Some of them were perhaps more definite. Then in the very last paragraph of the 
meeting that is reported there, do you see a passage beginning " In England they were 
prepared to stand " ? Who is speaking ; whose speech is it ? 

I will give you the name if you wish, but I am a little diffident about it. It is 
the very last paragraph of the eloquent speech that closed the meeting except the 
vote of thanks ? There are so many meetings in different parts of Ireland, and they 
are mixed up together. 

I will mark the passage for you if you wish it. (Counsel having marked the 
passage.) That is the passage I want you to look at. Did you read passages of 
this kind circulating in your district? "They would be right in resisting it by force, 
"and in their determination to resist it they would have the sympathy and support 
"of thousands of people in England, and amongst those thousands he had the 
"greatest pleasure in reckoning himself." You remember speeches to that effect 
at all events? Either speeches or comment to that effect. 

They were circulated broadcast through the country ? No doubt. 

Then the other passage is read in another question 3 

"He could add this as a word of partial assurance, that they had many powerful 
friends in England who thought as he did. It was all very well to talk of the 
great forces which were marshalled behind the Government, and which could be 
used in the event of extreme necessity in Ulster. The reply to that was that the 
forces of the Crown were the servants of the nation, and at least one half of the 
nation believed that the employment of this force would be a monstrous crime." 

Then follows this passage in the next question 

"If the resolution of Ulster were put to the test, they would find those in 
" England who had felt it their duty to encourage the men of Ulster in their attitude, 
"and who would be prepared to prove by their deeds that when they said that Ulster 
was right they meant Ulster was right, and who would be prepared to share the risk.' 



" 



1 P. 55. 2 P. 56. 3 P. 57. 
158 



Speech for Prisoner. 



Mr. Artemus Jones 



Then I propose to read from the cross-examination of Sergeant 
Hearn 1 

Do you remember in 1914, before the war, the Arms Proclamation? Yes. 

As an officer of the constabulary, were you concerned in acting under it for a 
while? Yes. 

Prior to that, had there been considerable importation of arms? Yes. 

As a matter of common knowledge in the country, was there prior to that a 
very large importation of arms in the north of Ireland ? Yes. 

Was it in consequence of what happened in the north of Ireland that the 
people were arming so far south as Tralee? I could not say that. 

Did they at all events purport to be arming? They did. 

As against the armed persons in the north of Ireland? Yes. 

Were they bearing arms openly? They were. 

Without interference by the public authorities? Yes. 

And actually on the outbreak of war was the proclamation against the import- 
ation of arms withdrawn on the 16th August ? Yes, that is so. 

And your directions, even so far as they went to interfere with the importation 
of arms ceased on the 16th August, on the withdrawal of the Proclamation for the 
time being? Yes. 

And the arming of the population went on then unrestricted for a while? Yes. 

And the parade of arms uninterfered with by any authority? Yes. 

People drilling' Yes. 

Marching ? Yes. 

Skirmishing through the country? Yes. 

Without any action taken on behalf of the police ? This arming of course 
commenced before the war, did it not? Yes, it did. 

It commenced some time in 1913, in the south, did it not? Yes. 

It had commenced earlier in the north? Yes. 

In re-examination by the Solicitor-General certain questions were put. 
So much for these passages. Now, I should like to read one passage in 
the evidence of Britten, but before I do that I should like to read the 
statement made by the witness, that they went on arming both against the 
armed forces in Ulster and against conscription. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes, partly against one and partly against 
the other; it was in re-examination by the Solicitor-General. 2 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES Yes. 

By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL What effect would the landing of a cargo, I do not 
say three pistols, but a cargo of arms and ammunition, in that country have had 
upon the population? It would have had a very grave effect. 

It has been put to you that the people were arming only against the Ulster- 
men from the north, is that so? Partly against Ulster and partly against 
conscription. 

Gentlemen, I have troubled you with those passages for the purpose 
of emphasising the fact that the state of things which, according to the 
police themselves, prevailed in Ireland prior to the war must have gone 
on subsequently, because the reference to conscription, you know, stamps it 
as being the date when that question came before Parliament and before 
the public. I think that is a perfectly legitimate observation to make, 
and therefore I am entitled, I think, to make this point. Given a com- 
munity such as you have in Ireland, with deep and bitter memories of 
what they consider to be wrongs, having by their constitutional movement 
secured their political rights, then being menaced on the one hand by 
citizens in the same island, Ireland, marching through the land prepared 
to resist lawful authority, what effect could that have upon the minds of 

*P. 49. 2 P. 52. 

159 



Sir Roger Casement, 



[p. Artemus Jones 



those peasantry and others down in the south of Ireland? Gentlemen, it 
is important for you to bear that fact in mind, because it was only then 
that this loyal servant of the Empire, as the Attorney-General called him, 
up till 1911, first became connected with anything in the nature of arms; 
and if the learned Attorney-General wants a complete answer to the 
question which he put, and properly put, in his opening speech, I suggest 
to him that he will find the answer in these newspaper extracts 1 that have 
been read out, and, above all, in the fact which is now, I think, beyond 
dispute, that it was in that way Sir Roger Casement started the Irish 
National Volunteer movement. Gentlemen, you must bear that circum- 
stance in mind, because, you know, there are two views, as I suggested 
before, for you to take on the evidence as it stands. Prima facie those 
in Court listening to the impressive speech of the Attorney-General might 
have thought this was a case which was absolutely undefended. They 
may have thought because of this, probably the most momentous crisis 
through which this island has passed, and when the fields of Europe are 
reddened with the blood of some of the best men in the world, that it 
does seem at first sight an outrage that a man who served the Empire 
for so long should go to the enemy country and commit high treason as 
against his own Sovereign. That was one picture which the learned 
Attorney-General drew ; but it is your duty, when you are sitting in that 
box a citizens of this land, to inquire into what the facts of the case 
are and into what the circumstances of the case are. It is open for you 
to form your own view as to what this man's motive and what this man's 
intention were when he is alleged to have committed these acts. 

Now, let me bring you, if I may, to the crucial question you have 
got to determine when you retire to consider your verdict. He is charged 
with committing high treason by adhering to the King's enemies in 
Germany, giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies. Gentlemen, 
you are dealing with the language of a statute passed almost six hundred 
years ago, and the meaning of those words " aid and comfort" at that 
time, I suggest to you, was something rather different from the words 
" aid and comfort " as they are used to-day. Aiding and comforting the 
enemy means supplying them with information or with forces or with 
material for the purpose of levying war against the King, and you have to be 
satisfied in your own mind that Sir Roger Casement's intention when h 
was in Germany was to use the Irish Brigade for the purpovse of fighting 
Germany's battles as against England. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The words of the statute, Mr. Jones, are, of 
course, to be interpreted according to law, and therefore they are not for 
the jury, but for us. I only interpose because I want to tell you the 
meaning that we attribute to tnose words, and upon which I shall direct the 
jury, so that you may address your mind to it. I should not adopt the 
language which you used just now, but I shall tell the jury that " giving 
"aid and comfort to the King's enemies" means assisting the King's 
enemies in the war with this country, and that any act which strengthens 
or tends to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of the war against us 
would be giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies, and that any act 
which weakens or tends to weaken the power of this country to resist or to 
attack the enemy equally is giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies. 
That is the direction of law that I intend to give. 
160 






Speech for Prisoner. 



HP. Artemus Jones 



Mr. ARTEMUS JONES I am much obliged to your lordship. Gentle- 
men, you have to be satisfied, bearing in mind, of course, the terms in 
which my lord will address you when it comes to his part of dealing with 
the case, and you will remember the terms of what he said, and also 
remember the essence of the offence is that it was Sir Roger Casement's 
intention in going to Germany. Gentlemen, just consider the position. 
Here he was in Cork, according to the evidence, in the years 1913 and 
1914, certainly before the war broke out, addressing a meeting there, as 
one of the witnesses said, with regard to the Irish National Volunteer 
movement. You remember what I am referring to, because the police 
witness referred to the fact that the name of Sir Edward Carson was 
mentioned, and that brought the meeting to an end. That was the move- 
ment with which he became associated. And now mark this, you and I 
may hold our own views as to the propriety of what he did then before 
the outbreak of war. With whom the responsibility lies for the terrible 
state of things in Ireland, when the executive of the realm failed to deal 
with that which they ought to have dealt with, this menace of armed 
resistance to lawful authority, whoever may have been responsible for 
that I care not, but the fact remains, the witnesses have already proved 
that that state of things had produced in the mind of the Iri&h peasantry 
a genuine fear that they might have to take that step in case of being 
attacked by some armed force in Ireland. That was Sir Roger Casement's 
position before the war broke out. After the war broke out what 
happens? He goes to Germany, as we know, and addresses these Irish 
prisoners of war and forms the Irish Brigade. What were the first words 
that he used to them? Mr. Sullivan yesterday dealt exhaustively with 
the witness who said he urged them to fight against Russia, and so on. 
I do not think you will pay much attention to the evidence of that 
witness. All the other soldiers were agreed that he made one object 
clear to them, that they would go to Ireland to fight for Ireland alone, 
not for any purpose of Germany, but for Ireland alone, after the war was 
over or after a triumph at sea had been won. I suggest to you, and I do 
it in all earnestness, that that supplies the keynote to the motive which 
actuated this man in the course he took. 

The Crown has to satisfy you by evidence, not by surmise, not by 
suggestion, not by insinuation, but by evidence and facts proved to your 
satisfaction, that when he did this thing in Germany he did it acting from 
a motive of desiring to strengthen, to adopt the language of my lord, or 
to tend to strengthen, the position of Germany in her war against England. 

Now, let me, if I may, deal with one point upon which no doubt 
the Crown will lay a good deal of emphasis. I ask you to form this 
opinion upon the evidence as it stands, that Sir Roger Casement's object 
when he addressed these prisoners of war in Germany was precisely the 
same object that he had in mind when, long before the war broke out, he 
addressed that meeting in Cork to form the National Volunteer movement. 
I have no doubt what the Crown may suggest in answer to that they 
will point to what they consider to be a very damning piece of evidence 
in the case, namely, the code. Gentlemen, let me deal, if I may, with 
that. According to the evidence called by the prosecution there was a 
German vessel somewhere near the coast of Ireland then. I suggest to 
M 161 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Artemus Jones 



you that that code is quite consistent with its being used with that vessel 
for the purpose of landing arms. Gentlemen, that was a wrong thing to 
do, it may have been a wicked thing to do, but that is irrelevant to the 
charge that you have to consider, which is high treason. That is im- 
porting into Ireland arms, which is made an offence by the Defence of the 
Realm Act, and the proper proceeding against Sir Roger Casement for that 
act would be a charge framed under the Defence of the Realm Act. The 
point I make on that is that that is not high treason or adhering to the 
enemie'8 of the King within the Empire of Germany. Gentlemen, that is 
an important point I suggest to you for you to bear in mind, because it 
is a sort of evidence, you know, which sometimes misleads a jury into 
returning wrong verdicts. I suggest that that circumstance alone is a 
matter which might have formed the subject of a charge under the Defence 
of the Realm Act, a charge against him of being a rebel; but, gentlemen, 
that is not treason. What the Crown have to satisfy you upon is that what 
he did in Germany was treason in the sense that it was designed, and 
designed by him, to strengthen the forces of Germany as against England. 
I suggest to you with all respect there is no such evidence. I suggest upon 
the evidence called by the prosecution, when you consider the light that 
it throws upon the man's character and upon his motive, that it is open 
for you to form the view that the object with which he did this act in 
Germany was exactly the same object as he had when he addressed that 
meeting in Cork in 1914. It is open for you to form a view of the case 
upon the evidence which would entitle you to return a verdict of not guilty 
in this case. If you are satisfied that what he did in Germany was not 
intended by him to aid and strengthen Germany as against England, if 
you are satisfied that the object with which he did these things in Germany, 
and what he did do in fact, was exactly the same object and with regard 
to the same work which he was carrying on in Ireland before the war, it is 
open for you to return a verdict of not guilty. 

Gentlemen, whom was the Irish Brigade formed to fight for? They 
did not leave Germany with Sir Roger Casement; they were left behind, 
as some of the witnesses have referred to. Thy did not come over to 
Ireland. When you bear that fact in mind, I suggest it is some evidence 
on which you can act at any rate when you are considering your verdict. 
That is a question I suggest to you respectfully you must answer, and I 
suggest also that the verdict you give must be an answer to that question. 
Whom was the Irish Brigade intended to fight for? It certainly was not 
Germany. If it be true, as the evidence shows it is, that there wasi in 
Ireland a number of people, I care not what position of life they were in, 
whether peasants or anybody higher, who really thought they had to arm 
themselves for the purpose of doing that which the lawful and constituted 
authority of the realm ought to have given them for the protection of 
themselves, if that be the case, it is open for you, as I said, to return a 
verdict of not guilty in this case. 

I am not going to make any appeal to you on behalf of the prisoner 
which is founded upon anything except those considerations that the law 
allows. I am not going to address you upon the terrible responsibility 
that rests upon you in considering this case. It is, as I said before, a matter 
of life and death, and it would ill become me to dwell upon that aspect 
162 



Speech for Prisoner. 



'. Artemus Jones 



of the matter as far as you are concerned. I spoke just now of the responsi- 
bility which devolves upon counsel who are pleading for the life of a fellow- 
creature. That responsibility is small compared with your responsibility. 
Each one of you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown 
have made out their case. The law demands), as the Attorney- General 
said, a forfeit; but that is not all the law demands. That man has a right 
to demand from you the same care and scrutiny in weighing the evidence 
as any one of you would expect to get were you standing in that dock. 
It is said that life is a comedy to those who look on, and it is a tragedy 
to those who feel. This trial may mean a tragedy to the prisoner on account 
of the terrible responsibility which rests upon your shoulders. Each one of 
you must be satisfied, and satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, that the 
Crown have made out their case. I am not going to addressi any appeal 
to you based upon sympathy or upon anything like an emotional plea in 
the way of mercy. The ancient and valiant race from which this man 
springs does not produce the type of man who shrinks from death for the 
sake of his country. The history of Ireland contains many melancholy and 
sad chapters, and not the least sad is the chapter which tells and speaks 
so eloquently of so many mistaken sons of that unfortunate country who 
have gone to the scaffold, as they think, for the sake of their native land. 
I am not going to base any appeal to you upon emotions. If the Crown 
have made out their case, it is your duty as lawful citizens to return a 
verdict of guilty; but I claim this 1 , that the law requires that the Crown 
should prove their case, and prove it up to the hilt, and you must with sure 
judgment and with clean consciences consider if you be satisfied upon that 
point ; and if you do that, if you approach the case in that spirit and apply 
that test to it, dark and heavy as the case may be as far as the defence is 
concerned, I do suggest to you that there is a way open to you to return 
a verdict which would be none the less just because it is humane. 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL May it please your lordships, gentlemen of 
the jury The case for the defence here has been presented to you, in the 
main by Serjeant Sullivan, with an ability and propriety and an eloquence 
which his distinguished career at the Irish bar entitled us to expect at his 
hands, and I, as all of us, most greatly regret the indisposition which 
at the last moment has deprived the prisoner of the advantage of his 
closing sentences, though not, I am glad to recall, of the main argument 
upon which he relied. 

Gentlemen, my learned friend who has just sat down has made an 
observation with which I entirely concur. He told you that you must 
demand of the Crown in this case and at the conclusion of this case that 
it shall have proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charges which it has 
made against the prisoner. I accept and I repeat the observation. It 
is the duty of the Crown to prove conclusively, and so that no doubt can 
linger in the mind of any man amongst your number, that the prisoner 
has been guilty of these acts for which the Crown arraigns him to-day. 

163 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

It will be my duty, I hope not at length, to satisfy you that at every stage 
of this case the Crown has proved every material statement which I made 
to you when, on behalf of the Crown, I opened this case some days ago. 

It is proper that I should make some general references to the only 
defence which has been attempted in this case before I trouble, as I fear 
I must trouble, you with a more detailed reference to the evidence that 
has been given. Gentlemen, when I opened thi case I was of opinion, and 
I am still of opinion, that I opened a simple and intelligible case, 
susceptible of a very clear answer, if indeed any answer could be made to 
the charges which it outlined. You have now heard counsel for the 
prisoner, and have heard the questions which they put to the witnesses 
who were called by the Crown, and you have heard the observations by 
which the defence has been made in the speeches of learned counsel. 
Let me summarise to you, as I conceive it, what the nature of that 
defence, now that we know it, is. I understand it to be this the prisoner 
did not attempt to seduce Irish soldiers from their admitted allegiance 
to the King in order that they might assist Germany, he did not attempt 
to seduce those soldiers from their allegiance in order that they might 
fight against England ; but he was so struck, hisi mind was so affected by 
the growing lawlessness 'in Ireland, by the constantly increasing accession 
of military equipment and strength to the Volunteers in the north of 
Ireland, that with the object of establishing an equipoise, to become 
effective after the war, between the strength of the Volunteers in the north 
of Ireland and the (Strength of those opposed to this view in tKe other parts 
of Ireland, he made attempts to procure men under the oath of military 
allegiance to the Sovereign of this country, to pledge themselves that 
at the end of the war they would go to Ireland, not for the purpose of 
assisting Germany, not for the purpose of fighting England, but for the 
purpose, as I have said, of holding themselves as a balance against the 
military power of the Volunteers of the north of Ireland, which, in the 
view of the prisoner, had attained excessive proportions. Now, you 
have listened to the speech, you have heard the rhetoric, and I make no 
complaint of it, by which that speech was supported, and you are in a position 
to judge whether in a few sentences I have not given you the whole sub- 
stance of the defence. It is a very simple issue. Whether, even if every 
fact in it was proved, it would be a good reply to the charges made by the 
Crown is another matter, and a matter on which for the moment I postpone 
discussion, because it is more convenient, and it would be a course more 
economical of your time, if I first examine into this question whether the 
evidence of what the prisoner actually did supplies the slightest support 
to the theory so elaborately placed before you to-day. 

Now, consider the case quite shortly. Consider the two alternatives, 
and then I will call your attention to the evidence, and you can choose 
between those alternatives. The case that is presented to you by the Crown 
is this short case, that the prisoner, a man who, as you know well, was 
long in the service of thisi country, and a man who well understood public 
affairs, that this man on the outbreak of war, the greatest struggle in 
which the country to which he had so long belonged had ever been engaged, 
went to the country of our principal enemy, that he found there captured 
soldiers of His Majesty the King, that he set himself then and there to 
164 






Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

seduce those men from their allegiance with the object of using them in 
violation of their military duty and at the risk of their lives in any 
enterprise which might injure the country to which they owed that allegi- 
ance. That is the charge made by the Crown, and a very specific charge. 
The answer is that they were not to be used to asisist Germany in any 
way, but they were only to be used on the conclusion of the war for 
matters concerned with the internal politics of Ireland. Those are the 
two cases. Let us examine them in the light of the evidence. 

First of all, let me call attention to an eloquent passage in the speech 
of my learned friend, Mr. Sullivan, in which you may, I think, find some 
indication that even he was conscious of some of the weaknesses of the 
case which he was recommending to your convictions. He said 1 

Gentlemen, what are you to do when, after years of labour, your representatives 
may hare won something that you yearn for for many a long day, won it under the 
constitution, had it guaranteed by the King and the Commons, and you are informed 
that you should not possess it because those that disliked it were arming to resist 
the King and Commons and to blow the statute off the book with powder? The 
civil police could not protect you, and the military force would perhaps prove 
inadequate for your support. You may lie down under it, but if you are men, to 
arms when all else fails, defend yourself. If the civil government will not protect 
you, if the constabulary cannot secure your rights, if you cannot rely upon brigades, 
the ultimate resort for any man in the protection of his constitutional freedom is to 
stand with arms in his hands, and if a civil government can be terrorised into 
obtaining his rights, try if his attitude will not inspire them with sufficient respect 
to do what is right without fear, favour, or affection. 

Gentlemen, I read that passage because I am anxious that the defence 
as I put it to you should be put, not in language of my own, but in the 
very language used by my learned friend, and immediately followed in 
his speech by this observation, " That, gentlemen, is the case that I 
" present to you on behalf of Sir Roger Casement; that is the explanation 
" of everything that he has done/' What is contained in the paragraph 
that I have just read to you? I will summarise it again, I hope with 
complete accuracy. It means this. Ireland had obtained Home Rule, 
or had at least secured the result that the Home Rule Bill was upon 
the Statute Book. They saw arming in the north of Ireland great 
forces, proclaiming their intention of resisting it, and finding that the 
military were apparently inadequate for the support of those who desired 
the Home Rule Bill to become law, they judged it necessary that 
Irishmen should adopt the ultimate resort in the protection of their con- 
stitutional freedom and stand with arms in their hands. I quote that 
particular sipeech of my learned friend, because I desire at once to make 
this observation upon it. Had the acts for which the prisoner stands 
arraigned been committed before the war took place, had they been com- 
mitted at the time when the acts which he alleges on the part of the Ulster 
Volunteers were taking place, these words might have been a good defence 
or a bad defence, but they would at least have had great relevance. 

I do not desire, and I hold it be wholly irrelevant, to go into old and 
unhappy controversies that have ceased to maintain any contact with the 
march of events, but I remind you of this, that there had intervened 
one circumstance which had altered the whole phase of Irish politics, 

1 P. 151. 

165 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

and my learned friend in the very next paragraph, to which I will 
presently draw your attention, shows that he realised it had altered 
the whole phase of Irish politics. What was that fact? It was that 
the greatest military power which the world has ever known was trying 
to destroy thisi country and trying to make an end of this Empire. Since 
these controversies arose, what honest citizen was thinking or talking 
of whether or not there might at some future day be resistance to the 
Home Rule Bill? From the moment that Germany made her tiger 
spring at the throat of Europe, I say from that moment the past was 
the past in the eyes of every man who wished well to England, and my 
learned friend knew it; he was oppressed by the difficulty, and he goes 
on in his speech, and he says this 1 

Gentlemen, this condition of affairs had indeed been reached prior to this war 
that has broken out with the Empire of Germany. 

Now, listen to this, showing what the real facts were, and showing 
how clearly my learned friend realised them 

There was indeed an understanding and a convention between the greater 
leaders of these factions arming and counter-arming, that for a while, while the 
danger to the Empire existed, this dreadful state of affairs should be put an end 
to ; that, in the meantime, faith has been kept, let us all thank Providence, for it 
enabled my countrymen in the service of Ireland, for they are serving the glorious 
traditions of their own land, to write their names in every battlefield in Europe, 
a thing that would have been impossible without such understanding. Do not 
imagine, though you may live in a great city of the Empire, that you can sneer 
at the loyal patriotism of these men. 

Observe the remarkable admission made in those words, and, indeed, 
a necessary admission for any candid and reasonable advocate. My learned 
friend himself reminds you there that on the outbreak of the war there 
was an understanding and a convention between the greater leaders of 
these factions that while the danger to the Empire existed this dreadful 
state of things should be put an end to. Then my learned friend points 
out, and quite truly, that in the meantime 

Faith has been kept, let us all thank Providence, for it enabled my countrymen 
in the service of Ireland to write their names in every battlefield in Europe. 

So that we have it admitted, and thie is the case of my learned 
friend himself, that while there were unhappy controversies and profound 
antagonism of opinion, acta done on both sides, as to which I do not ask 
now whether the one was right or the other wae right, for the inquiry would 
be long, bitter, and irrelevant, we have it admitted that with the out- 
break of this war, with the danger to the Empire which the outbreak 
of this war involved, there was an arrangement and a convention between 
the leadensi of these factions which would enable Irish soldiers to do what 
Irish soldiers have done in every great war in which this country has 
been engaged write their names with their swords on the battlefields 
of Europe. 

Yes, gentlemen, but how do these reflections help the prisoner? 
How do these reflections support what and what alone is the case made here 
before you on the prisoner's behalf? Old controversies and dangers 
which might have arisen from those controversies had this war not 
broken out. The outbreak of war, the swift menace to everything this 

J P. 152. 
166 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

country possesses, to everything that our ancestors have bequeathed to us 
in our long history, the swift menace to all those things, I eay, the 
realisation by the responsible men of all parties in Ireland of the menace, 
required that these controversies should be composed as long as the danger 
lasted. Is that the view the prisoner took? What waa the quality of 
the prisoner's acts? At the very moment that these Irish soldiers who 
in my learned friend's eloquent address have written their names on the 
battlefields of France, in that glorious retreat which marked the early 
dtys of the war, at the very moment when they had been taken into cap- 
tirity, his idea of observing the truce, the existence of which has been 
plainly stated to you by my learned friend, of avoiding the danger to the 
Empire of raising these matters as long as the war lasts, was to go over to 
Germany under circumstances on which I shall say more in a moment, and 
attempt to seduce those men from their allegiance, and to arrange then 
and there that at some period, which I will show presently was not the end 
of tie war, they were to land in Ireland in order to evoke there once again 
the hideous spectre of disunion, disloyalty, and armed insurrection. My 
learned friend has put before you, ais I have told you, a suggestion as to 
the proposal that the prisoner made to these Irish prisoners of war from 
which I dissent from first to last. He has told you that what the prisoner 
said to these Irish eoldiers at Limburg was that at the conclusion of the 
war they should go to Ireland in order to fight for Ireland. 

Now, I have an observation to make to you at the very outset before 
I challenge and test that claim, and the observation I wish to make to you 
is this I shall put it in the form of a question. I have already asked 
that question in this case and received no answer to it ; the question can be 
put thus shortly Why did the prisoner ever go to Germany at all 1 That is 
the first question, and I follow it by a second How did he get to Germany? 
What was the nature of the arrangement and of the assurance that was 
given to him before he went to Germany? How was it that when his 
country was at war with Germany, when these Irish soldiers on the 
field of battle had just been made prisoners by the German Army, that we 
find him for months a free man in Germany, moving without restriction in 
whatsoever part of Germany those Irish soldiers were confined, able, without 
control or interference, to go amongst them and attempt to seduce them? 
Why in this view of the case did he go to Germany at all ? What suggested 
motive is there? Gentlemen, it is not through inadvertence, I apprehend, 
that no answer has been given to that question by my learned friends, 
because when I opened this case to you I tell you plainly it struck me 
this question was the crux of the whole matter of the prisoner's activities. 
Let me remind you of what I said, and how pointedly I said it when I 
opened this case to you. I said this very deliberately, " If it be possible 
" to give an explanation of the original journey of the prisoner to 
" Germany which is consistent with the duty which he owed, and which 
"he has so recently professed to his Sovereign and to his country, I hope 
' ' that this explanation will be put forward by the very experienced counsel 
" by whom he has the advantage of being defended." 

The question that I asked, as I then said, deliberately and pointedly, 
has never been answered. Why has it never been answered? I can tell 
you. It has never been answered because no answer to that question could 

167 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-Gen eral 

be given which is consistent with the integrity of the prisoner. Why did 
he go to Germany? His case made before you and through the lips of 
his counsel is that he went there to make sure there would be some men 
who would be strong enough to balance the Volunteers in the north of 
Ireland after the war. Where do you think would be the place in which 
his efforts might be most fruitful if that really was his object? 
Do not you think that if that really was his object he might possibly 
have stayed in Ireland where he would still have been in ths 
King's dominions? Why go to Germany? Why go and corrupt other 
men, to make them in breach of their duty incur grave penalties? 
Why go there? How arrange with that Government which gives very 
little for nothing? How arrange with that Government that as the Irish 
prisoners were taken they should be addressed by him? How was all fhis 
arranged, on what terms, and in what documents were those terms conveyed? 
Gentlemen, if we knew the full story of the circumstances under which 
this man went to Germany, if we knew what negotiations had taken place 
and what safeguards were given, what plans were made, perhaps this- 
defence would be even more difficult than it is to-day. 

Now, let me, as I promised you I would, show you in a moment how 
wholly inconsistent the evidence given by the Irish witnesses is with the 
case put forward to-day. I will follow them much in the same order as 
my learned friend, Mr. Sullivan, followed them yesterday. I take first 
of all the witness Cronin. He had said there were seventy or eighty men 
in a crowd. 1 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He said that he was going to form an Irish 
Brigade, and he said why live any longer in hunger and misery in this camp when you 
can better yourselves by joining the Irish Brigade which I am going to form; you 
will be sent to Berlin as the guests of the German Government. 

I pause there to ask whether, in your reading of the habits of the 
German Government, you think that the German Government were taking 
the same view of the activities of the prisoner that apparently the prisoner, 
according to the evidence put forward on his behalf to-day, was taking. I 
am unaware of anything in the history of the German nation during 
this war which would lead me to accept with enthusiasm the suggestion 
that they would be prepared to offer unlimited hospitality to a number 
of Irish soldiers in order that when the war was over they would be able 
to write a new page in the purely domestio history of their country I am 
unaware of anything in the suggestion that leads me to accept with alacrity 
the theory, by whomsoever it is brought forward. 

Examination continued Did he say what this Irish Brigade was to do? He 
said in the event of Germany winning a sea battle he would land them in Ireland. 

Then I have in the print, " And Ireland would equip them " ; I do not 
know how that may be, I do not recollect that answer. The words I 
want to lay stress on are these, " He said in the event of Germany winning 
" a sea battle he would land them in Ireland." 

What were they to do in Ireland? Free Ireland. 

Did he say who they were to fight against? Against England. 

Did he say what would happen to them if Germany did not win? They would 

be sent to America. They would get 10 or 20 pocket money and a free passage. 

*P. 17. 

168 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

If the nature of the activities which were contemplated for these 
men were of the character which it is now suggested to you on behalf of 
the prisoner they were, here again I pause to express my eurprise that 
the German Government, in return for such prospective services after 
the war, were found advancing or promising them 10 or 20 pocket 
money at the end of the war and a passage to America. It may be 
so, but it would surprise me if it were so. What is involved in that 
uncontradicted evidence never forget that and therefore evidence, as 
my lord will tell you, to be received by you? What is involved in that? 
If Germany won a sea battle they were to be landed in Ireland. Does 
he say at the end of the war they were to be landed in Ireland? He 
says nothing of the kind. My learned friend, Mr Sullivan, says, if 
Germany wins a sea battle that would be the end of the war. He is 
quite wrong. It does not necessarily follow : it might be or it might 
not; there is not the slightest indication in the ispeech he was making to 
them that the prisoner is convinced of it ; it might be not a decisive German 
success, but it might be such a success as to give Germany isuch a tem- 
porary control of the eea as would enable her to send these men over to 
Ireland. There is not a single word in the evidence of this man (I will 
deal with the story of the other witnesses later) which lends support to the 
view that the prisoner said a word to them showing that their inter- 
vention in Ireland was to be at the end of the war. Their interven- 
tion was to be if Germany wins a isea battle. Why do you suppose he took 
that as the period? For obvious reasons. Until Germany won a sea 
battle it was clear that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, 
to take any considerable body of men to Ireland, and therefore there 
would be no serious or practical proposal at all if he had not made this 
proviso. And so the proposal was at the earliest moment which made 
it possible, when success, temporary or complete, made it possible to 
make an invasion of Ireland, and when you make that invasion to fight 
against England not against Volunteere in Ulster, not at the end of 
the war to see fair play between the various factions and to see that 
Ireland is not robbed of her birthright. If he said that, wholly different 
considerations would have arisen; but he did not say that; he said to 
these men, as I told you before, attempting to corrupt them, in effect: 
" At the first moment you can eafely get to Ireland will you go there; 
rt will you join this brigade and fight against England? " Gentlemen, 
you can sweep away all these belated after-thoughts and sophistries 
about old Irish politics and the Volunteers in the north of Ireland. They 
were never in his mind when he made these speeches, they never inspired 
the appeals he made, they had no relation to it, and, as I have said, they 
are after-thoughts when it is necessary to attempt to exhume some defence, 
however remote from the facts, in the position in which the prisoner 
finds himself. 

So much for Cronin's evidence. Now, let me take the evidence of 
the next witness, O'Brien 1 

He said that if they were successful in winning the war they would land the 
Irish Brigade along with the German army in Ireland. 

Mark that, " Along with the German Army." Does that look very 

1 P. 23. 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

much as if the invasion was only to be at the end of the war? That is 
uncontradicted evidence, and I think uncross-examined too. My learned 
friend reminds me of a passage before that 1 

I heard him say, "Now is the time for Irishmen to fight against England, now is 
"their opportunity for doing so; join the Irish Brigade." He said he came to form 
an Irish Brigade, and he wanted all Irishmen to join the Irish Brigade and become 
guests of the German army. 

Gentlemen, I pause to make the comment there that I am not one 
of those who, in dealing with the memory of private soldiers, of words 
said to them many months ago, under circumstances of great stress 
and anxiety on their part, would ask you or any other jury to 
accept with verbal precision their recollection of what was said, but I 
would confidently ask you to accept their recollection as to the broad 
and salient features of the speech so often made to them. That is the 
recollection of this man O'Brien. 

My lord reminds me of a question, and it is convenient I should 
read it, in the cross-examination by my learned friend 2 

Did he say they were to be transferred to Ireland when Germany had won the 
war? Yes. 

And if Germany failed to win the war they should go to America? To 
America, yes. 

Arrangements would be made to have them go to America. Did you speak to 
Sir Roger Casement at all yourself? No. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Then there is the re-examination. 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There is the re-examination by my learned 
friend, the Solicitor-General 3 

To take you back for a moment to the speech you heard Sir Roger Casement 
make, he said the Irish Brigade were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say who were to take them to Ireland to fight? The German Army. 
Did he say against whom they were to fight? To fight against England. 

It is quite obvious that the phrase, " When the war is over," in 
such a connection has no meaning at all. If they were to be taken over 
to Ireland to fight against this country by any German agency, military 
or civil, whether they were also accompanied by German soldiers or not, 
it is quite obvioue that if one war was over that was the commencement 
of a new war; it was an act of hostility, it was just as much an act of 
treason to this country to arrange at a moment when a particular phase 
of a war was concluded as it was if it were terminated immediately, by 
the agency of your late enemy, to transport armed men accompanied by 
German soldiers to Ireland; it was just as much an act of hostility as 
if there never had been a temporary conclusion of the existing hostilities. 
The truth is, as one must recognise when you look closely and collate 
the evidence of the various witnesses, that the real application and appeal 
that was made to them was that they should go to Ireland when the naval 
victory was won. 

Now, gentlemen, I come to the evidence of Robinson 4 

I remember him saying, "Now is your chance to fight for Ireland and free it. I 
"am very glad to see you here. This is the only chance you will have to fight for 
"Ireland. Why do not you join the Irish Brigade?" Then he spoke about the 
treatment of Ireland in England. That is all I remember. 

1 P. 23. 2 P. 24. s P. 25. 4 P. 26. 
170 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

What was the Irish Brigade to do? They were supposed to land in Ireland 
and free Ireland. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Tell us what you heard him say, not what they were 
supposed to do? That is about all I can remember at the present time. He said 
he was very glad to see so many Irishmen here, that now was our time to fight for 
Ireland and strike a blow, and he hoped we would all join the Irish Brigade. 

Examination continued Did he say with whom the Irish Brigade were going to 
fight? Fight against England. He said that if Germany had a victory on the sea, 
they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland. 

This statement repeated by that witness is what I ask you to conclude 
was actually said by the prisoner. Those are the term of the proposal, 
which the submission of the Crown puts before you, dealing with the 
facts; that was the proposal, that if Germany had a victory on the sea 
then and there they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland. My learned 
friend reminds me that in cross-examination he adhered to that story 1 

And did he address you? Did he say it was to go to Ireland when the 
Germans had won the war? No, he said if Germany had a victory on sea. 

Did he speak about Germany winning the war? Yes. 

What did he say about Germany winning the war? He always said that 
Germany would win, but we contradicted him and said they would not. 

I suggest to you that he represented when Germany had won the war that the 
Irish Brigade was to go to Ireland unless there was a victory at sea meantime. 
Was that what he said ? I cannot remember that. I remember him saying if Ger- 
many had a victory on sea he would land us in Ireland. 

So that he adheres to his story under the stress of cross-examination. 
I am reminded of another question in my learned friend's re-examina- 
tion 2 

You told the jury that you heard Sir Roger Caement say that if Germany won 
a victory at sea the Irish Brigade would be landed in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say who would send the Irish Brigade to Ireland? Germany would 
send us to Ireland. 

Did he say whether they would have any fighting to do? He did not go into 
that; he said it was to free Ireland when they got there. 

Did he say from whom they were to free Ireland? From England. 

So much for his evidence. Then Michael O'Connor was the next 
witness. He heard the prisoner addressing some men 3 

He said, " Now is the time to fight or strike a blow for Ireland," and that 
England was nearly beaten. 

You notice the exaltation in that statement. 

I should think there were about seventy men listening to him. I was on the 
outskirts of the crowd. I have told all that I heard him say. I saw him on that 
later occasion, but I did not hear what he said. The people were hissing and booing 
him down the lines that day. He said that those that hissed him were followers of 
Johnnie Redmond, the recruiting sergeant of the British Army. A sergeant-major of 
the 4th Dragoon Guards called Casement a traitor. That sergeant-major was sent to 
Giessen or some other camp for punishment, along with Corporal Robinson. 

Then the next witness is Moore 4 

Sir Roger Casement asked those men to join the Irish Brigade, I being among 
the men, and he said any man that would join the Irish Brigade he would give 
him uniform, better food, and better housing. 

1 P. 27. 2 P. 29. 3 P. 32. 4 P. 33. 

171 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

The theory, I may pause to say, put forward by the defence has 
not explained to us why a German uniform should have been immediately 
provided for the men then if the fighting was to be in Ireland after the 
war ; that is a link that is somewhat missing in the explanations that have 
been given. I resume reading now 1 

He also said, in case of the Germans losing the war, he would send those men 
to America, give them a free passage and 10 or 20 pocket money, and guarantee 
employment in America. The Irish Brigade was to be sent from Limburg to a 
camp outside Berlin. He said they were to be the guests of the German Government. 
He also said the first German victory on the water he would land the brigade in 
Ireland. 

Then he was asked what was to be done with the Irish Brigade, and 
he said they were to be landed in Ireland. Then he was asked : who was 
going to land them in Ireland, but that he does not know 

I did not hear him say how the Irish Brigade were going to get to Ireland, 
but he said he would land them in Ireland. 

There again you find the statement very clearly recollected and spoken 
to by this witness, that it was to be sent to Ireland when the German 
naval victory was gained. 

I come now to the evidence of Neill. I do not propose to read that, 
because I have to make an observation upon it. Neill, you will remember, 
is the witness who spoke about the Russians and the Turks. Without 
throwing the slightest reflection upon his good faith and desire to tell 
the truth, comparing the statement which he made with the statements 
that had been made by the other military witnesses who have been called 
before you, I do not ask you to place any reliance at all upon the isolated 
and unsupported evidence of Neill as to these observations about the 
Russians and the Turks. I say that to clear the ground, because I want 
you to deal with the case upon matters which are established, and not upon 
matters which are disputable or may be questioned. In justice to Neill, 
I only make it clear that while I do not ask you to accept his recollection, 
unsupported as it is, upon this point, I make and I should concur in no 
reflections at all upon the man's credibility or his desire to tell the truth 
as he remembered the facts. 

I have given you now the clear recollection of the witnesses, collecting 
it together so that you may have it all before your minds, at the same time, 
as to what was actually said to them by the prisoner. What becomes 
of the defence, and what becomes of the only defence which has been 
attempted to be made? Is there one witness to whom it was suggested 
that all they were to do was to come and be ready in order to watch the 
Volunteers in the north of Ireland? Can any man who has listened to that 
evidence as to what the prisoner actually said doubt that it is an invented 
story that is put forward that he was concerned to obtain the services 
of these men remotely in the future, in order that they might deal with 
the situation as it emerged in Ireland after the war? There is not a single 
witness who has made any statement consistent with that view, and all the 
witnesses have made statements that are wholly inconsistent with that 

1 P. 34. 
172 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

view. He was not asking them anything of the kind. What he was asking 
them was this, if Germany gained a naval success, in other words, if 
Germany acquired the facilities for landing troops in Ireland, are you 
prepared to go and fight in Ireland against England? That is what he 
said, and that was all that he said, that was what he always said, that is 
what all these witnesses speak to. What is the nature of that attempt? I 
respectfully accept, as I should be bound to accept, the indication which my 
lord, the Lord Chief Justice, gave to my learned friend as to the direction 
which he proposed to give you on the question of law, which is for my lord. 
I do not pretend to recall with precision the admirable language in which my 
lord stated the direction which he proposed to give to you, but I remember 
that my lord said this, that he should direct you that anything was an aiding 
and comforting of the King's enemies which strengthened the enemy for the 
purpose of his struggle with this country, or which weakened this country 
for the purpose of its struggle with the enemy. I ask you to apply that 
test to what we know now and while it is fresh in your mind on the uncon- 
tradicted evidence of what was said by the prisoner Casement to these men. 
There is no other evidence, and I have read to you all the evidence which 
there is. Apply that test. Supposing that Germany did win a naval 
success, giving her temporary control of the seas, giving it her for long 
enough to land Irish and German soldiers in Ireland, supposing that had 
taken place, would that or would it not have strengthened the enemy Ger- 
many in her struggles with this country; I ask you, would it or would it 
not? Would it or would it not have weakened this country in her 
struggle with Germany, supposing that happened which I ask you to 
imagine? If you answer those questions as I ask them, only one answer 
is possible. Of course, Germany must have been necessarily strengthened 
if they could have landed troops in considerable numbers, and arms and 
ammunition in Ireland; just as Germany would have been necessarily 
strengthened, so this 1 country would have been necessarily weakened. 

When we are considering these contingencies, when we are attempting 
to understand motives and appraise expectations, we must not confine our 
views to what we know now, that in fact these men retained their loyalty, 
starving as we know they were, starving as the evidence shows us they 
were, starving as the prisoner's address to them shows that he knew at the 
moment, when he made his appeal to them, they were. It is true that, 
in spite of those circumstances, only 50 men were seduced and corrupted 
from the soldierly duty which they owed to their Sovereign ; that is true. 
But, gentlemen, supposing they had all been seduced, supposing they had 
stampeded in a body, supposing the attempt which he desired to succeed 
had wholly succeeded, and there had been thousands of these Irish soldiers 
who in Germany had consented to eat the bread of Germany, and wear the 
uniform of Germany, and to hold themselves in readiness to come and 
invade Ireland on the first opportunity, what do you think would have been 
the moral effect on the strength of this country? Do you think it would 
have weakened her in this war that it should have been known that 
thousands of Irish soldiers, forming the flower of that small Expeditionary 
Force, of which all Englishmen were so proud, had stampeded into the arms 
and the camps of Germany, and were now to be seen walking at will in 

173 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

Germany wearing Germany's uniforms and anxiously awaiting the moment 
when a German success at sea might enable them to be transported to 
Ireland, in order that they might take up arms against England; would 
that strengthen Germany and weaken England? Have you any doubt in 
your minds that considerations of that kind passed through the minds of 
Germany, a country of which I have said you will probably draw the view 
that they are not guilty, as a rule, of disinterested acts of generosity or 
charity. If that was the view the prisoner shared with the German Govern- 
ment, that would explain their readiness to provide them with superior 
rations and uniforms, and their readiness to promise 10 or 20 to each 
man if the war went unfavourably for Germany and he had to be sent 
back to America. 

I have said, I hope, enough upon this part of the case, and now I come 
to another point on which I certainly hoped and believed that my learned 
friends in their speeches would have at least suggested some theory. We 
now know that the prisoner on his view, such is his case, had only asked 
these Irishmen to hold themselves in readiness to go to Ireland, at the con- 
clusion of the war, for the purpose which has been stated to you so 
frequently. I should like to have heard some explanation as to why 
he went to Ireland, having been in Germany, before the end of the war. 
I cannot tell you how he went to Ireland. I agree with my learned friend 
Serjeant Sullivan's observation on this point that the Court and the jury 
may reasonably take cognisance of the fact that Ireland is an island, and 
therefore the probability is that he went there by sea. To that view I assent. 
I have not been in a position to inform you, or to call evidence before you, 
showing how he got to Ireland. My friend disputes altogether, I will not 
say my theory, but my supposed theory, because if he had examined my 
opening speech a little more clearly he would have observed that I did not 
commit myself to any theory upon this point; I studiously and carefully 
avoided doing BO; but my learned friend disputes the supposed theory of 
the Crown that the " Aud " had any direct connection with the landing 
of the prisoner in Ireland. He says, and I think the observation he makes 
here upon my opening is well founded, that I put it too high when I said the 
" Aud " was taken near Tralee. I think that criticism made by him is well 
founded upon that statement in my opening speech, and to the extent to 
which I will indicate to you I withdraw it. It is quite true, as the evidence 
stands before you, that the " Aud," consisting of a crew of German blue- 
jackets and German officers, wast not captured near Tralee; it was captured 
about 90 miles, I think it was put, from Queens town. 

The LORD CHEEP JUSTICE 138 miles from Queenstown, 90 miles from 
the coast. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 90 miles from the coast of Ireland. I did not 
happen to be in Court when that evidence was given. That, gentlemen, 
makes it very necessary to ask what was the " Aud " doing on the view of 
the defence. I will state to you in a moment the view of the Crown as to 
what the " Aud " was doing quite clearly, and I do not care whether she 
was within 3 miles of Tralee or within 90 miles of Tralee. The theory of 
the Crown is this, that it was all part of a concerted enterprise, concerted 
in Germany. I stated that in opening, and I state it now. I made a 
174 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

geographical error, such as it was, but I re-etate the theory of the Crown 
that it was part of a common enterprise. Whether or not the " Aud " 
was to be landed in a different part of Ireland I do not argue, and I am 
not concerned to argue. It does not matter to me where it was going to 
land if you accept the view that it was going to land, to carry arms to 
Ireland. I do not know that my learned friend, Serjeant Sullivan, did 
accept that view. On the contrary, I think some of the observations he 
made support an entirely different view. My learned friend, Mr. Jones, 
on the other hand, when dealing with the question of the code, said it may 
have been intended for the purpose of communication with the " Aud." 
It may be; I do not know. I note a suggestion which may prove helpful 
in this tangled mass, when so much is left to conjecture and so little can 
be alleged with certainty. It may be that my learned friend is right. The 
fact that this code, as to which I shall make some further observations 
to you in a moment, was available, as my friend suggests, for communica- 
tion with the " Aud," would not prevent it being available for communica- 
tion with other people in Germany; but the mere fact that such a sugges- 
tion should be possible shows really that there is no doubt in the mind of 
anybody that there was a connection between the " Aud " and the landing 
of the prisoner in Ireland. If the prisoner did not come in the " Aud," 
and I have never suggested that he did, then it is obvious, I think, that, 
coming from Germany, as we know he did (at least, we must draw an 
irresistible inference; we have the railway ticket from Berlin to Wilhelms- 
haven, dated 12th April, a few days before the date of landing), he came in 
some other German vessel, or some neutral vessel arranged for by the 
Germans. I cannot tell you what the vessel was. But you will remember 
that the witness Hussey isaw a red light out at sea at half -past nine on 
Thursday evening, which may have been connected with the actual landing 
of Casement. One of my learned friends reminds me that in the diary, 
where there are evidently false names used to indicate places, on the 12th 
April, the very date of the ticket from Berlin to Wilhelmshaven, this 
entry appears, " Left Wicklow in Willie'is yacht/' False names are used 
for places which will satisfy you, I think, as to what the meaning of that 
entry ie. That entry is on the 12th April, the day when the ticket was 
actually issued in Germany. I do not waste any further time upon these 
points, as to which I cannot give you assistance, because I have not the 
knowledge. I do waste time, because, from my point of view 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Attorney, you mentioned a passage in 
the diary. Is there any evidence as to whose diary it is? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It was a diary. I will give your lordship the 
evidence of it. It was a diary found. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I know, but as far as my recollection goes 
there was no further evidence given beyond the fact that it was found. 
Whose writing it is, or whoise diary it is, there is no evidence. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL My lord, I did not say that it was a diary 
of any particular person. I eaid " the diary." By " the diary " I mean 
the diary which was found, and is in evidence as having been found. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I thought it right to indicate that, because 

175 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

it might have conveyed to the jury that it was Casement's diary. There 
is no evidence of it. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL You have heard, gentlemen, what my lord has 
said. If there was any misunderstanding I am glad it should be removed. 
It was a diary found with three men as to whom I make the suggestion 
that they had all come from Germany. There is no evidence before 
you as to which of the three the diary belonged, but whoever kept the 
diary made the note that on the 12th April, the day when the ticket was 
issued from Berlin to Wilhelmshaven, they left Wicklow in Willie's yacht, 
Wicklow being an assumed name, on the suggestion of the Crown, and 
whether " Willie's yacht" was a flippant way of describing a vessel com- 
missioned in the name of the Kaiser is a matter as to which you can form 
your opinion. 

Now, gentlemen, I have called attention to one or two points in the 
matters in respect of which the defence have wholly failed to give any ex- 
planation at all consistent with the innocence of the prisoner. I come now to 
the most striking case of all. I come to the matter which, if there was 
nothing else in the case, would show in the most conclusive manner 
possible that the whole defence, and the only defence relied upon here, 
is wholly without basis or foundation, and that is the code which, as my 
learned friend, Mr. Jones, anticipated, would be a matter upon which 
the Crown would lay stress. In order that you may fully understand 
the damning effect of the code upon the prisoner's defence you must once 
again consider the circumstances as they are known to us under which 
he came to Ireland. He came to Ireland, if the defence is true, as a 
man who never had contemplated, and did not, in fact, contemplate, 
that anything should be done in Ireland until the conclusion of the war. 
That is his case. So he must have come merely in the capacity of one who 
was about to concern himself with domestic problems in Ireland. If his 
defence be well founded, it must be said that he came to Ireland in order 
to carry on his work for the purpose of strengthening the National 
Volunteers. That case conceivably might have been put forward. 
But what is certain is this, that if the defence made here to-day is 
well founded, he could not have had any arrangement with the 
Germans by which the Germans would support him then and there. 
That iis plain. If he went to Ireland under arrangements by which 
the Germans were to send him ammunition, were to send him arms, were 
to isend him more ammunition and more arms, it is quite plain 
he was going there for the purpose charged by the Crown, and that he 
could not have been going there for the purpose indicated or suggested 
by the defence. I hope that is clear. To me it is so plain that it 
requires no further emphasis. What has he got with him? What does he 
try to get rid of when arrested? He tries to get rid of the code, an 
arranged code between himself and the Germans. What did he want with 
a code between himself and the Germans when he left Germany? His 
counsel has told us in eloquent language that he was not going at any 
time to associate Ireland with the Germans ; that he did not want to help 
Germany. His counsel has told us that his only concern was with the 
Volunteers of the north. Why in the name of sanity did he on this view 
176 






Part of the Diary, with disguised names and places. 
(Page 2.) 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Attorney-General 

want to arrange a code with the Germans ? There is no theory consistent 
with the defence which will explain to you why any code was necessary at 
all. But look at this code. Consider the nature of the communications 
which, when he left the country of our enemy for Ireland, he knew to be 
required by his purpose and their purpose to pass between him and them. 

Look at this code ' ' Railway communications have been stopped. 
11 Our men are at ." It would be very interesting to the German 

Government, on the theory of the defence, to know that railway com- 
munications had been stopped. What had they got to do with it? 
" Further ammunition is needed." Does that throw any light upon the 
cargo of the "Aud"? Why does Germany send some ammunition in 
addition to which it is contemplated that further ammunition may be 
required? The mere message that further ammunition may be required 
or is needed, the mere language in which that message is couched, pre- 
supposes and renders necessary the conclusion that some ammunition has 
already been given. Why is the prisoner arranging that Germany shall 
iSend ammunition to Ireland, not at the end of the war, but during the 
war, and at the very moment of the bitterest struggles in the war? Why 
is that being done? Is it being done in order that at the end of the 
war some steps may be taken to meet the Ulster Volunteers? Gentle- 
men, it does not end there. " Further rifles are needed. How many 
" rifles will you send us? How much ammunition will you send us? " 
Then listen to this " Will send plan about landing on ."It 

might be filled in as the exigencies of the moment might require. 
What does it mean without being filled in? It means a plan will be 
necessary to prepare for another landing, a landing of troops, a brigade, 
whatever it might be, ammunition, explosives; and the prisoner, who is 
only concerned with the Volunteers in the north after the war, leaves 
Germany in the middle of this war with a code in which he and the 
Germans acting in concert have carefully prepared themselves with mess- 
ages, secret messages by which he from Ireland can send to them a plan 
for hostile landings in the middle of this war, and then we are told fairy 
tales about what is going to be done after the war with the Volunteers 
of the north of Ireland. What had the Germans to do with a landing 
made pendente bello if there was any basis or substance in the only case 
that has been put before you? Then listen to another " Send ship to 
." You will understand now why I thought I might deal with 
some economy of time with the character and mission of the " Aud." 
" Send another ship to . Send rifles and ammunition to 

" Cannons and plenty of ammunition are needed. Send them to 
"Send more explosives to . Send a vessel if possible." What 

does all that mean? It is no good my repeating it and elaborating and 
over -elaborating it. What it means is obvious. Then, as I am reminded, 
" This code holds good from 22nd April to 20th May," a period I need 
hardly point out to you all of which was actually engaged in hostilities. 

One further word and I will say no more about this code, because 

its meaning is clear, and no useful purpose can be served by repetition. 

This code, on the submission of the Crown, shows that there is no substance 

at all in the case put forward by the defence. This code, on the submission 

N 177 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Attorney-General 

of the Crown, shows that the prisoner Casement, who went under circum- 
stances unexplained to us, and which I cannot explain, to the enemy 
country while hostilities were in progress, who was allowed his freedom 
in that country while hostilities were in progress, who left that country 
for Ireland while hostilities were in progress, had agreed with the Germans 
to send them messages arranging for a landing, asking for another ship, 
and asking for explosives, for cannons, and for ammunition. Gentlemen, 
if you can reconcile those facts with the duty which the prisoner owed to 
this country, if you can reconcile those facts with the submissions which 
have been made to you on behalf of the defence, do so. If those facts 
taken together, his journey to Germany, his speeches when in Germany, 
the inducements he held out to these soldiers, the freedom which he there 
enjoyed, the course which he pursued in Ireland, the messages which he 
contemplated as likely to take place between himself and the Germans, 
satisfy you of his guilt you must give expression to that view in your 
verdict. 

My learned friend, Mr. Sullivan, said in the early period of his 
observations that he hoped this case would be heard by you with a fair 
and impartial mind. The Crown hopes nothing else. You have a duty 
to discharge as serious and in many ways as testing as the duties which 
are discharged by any other men serving the State in these bloody and 
critical days. If you should come to the conclusion that the Crown has 
proved its case, however painful the duty, it is one from which you cannot, 
and you dare not, shrink. I have discharged my responsibility in this 
case; do you discharge yours. 



The Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Gentlemen of the jury, this is a trial of 
supreme importance. The charge against the prisoner is the gravest 
known to the law. You have had the advantage, shared by us with you, 
of hearing the case presented to you by the Attorney-General, assisted by 
the Solicitor-General and other counsel, on behalf of the Crown. You have 
had the advantage also of hearing the defence in this case conducted by 
Mr. Sullivan until this morning, with the assistance of his juniors. There 
are some persons who, perhaps a little thoughtlessly, are inclined to rebel 
against the notion that a member of the English bar, or members of it, 
should be found to defend a prisoner on a charge of treason against the 
British State. I need not tell you I am sure, gentlemen, that if any one 
has those thoughts in his mind he has but a poor conception of the high 
obligation and responsibility of the bar of England. It is the proud 
privilege of the bar of England that it is ready to come into Court and to 
defend a person accused, however grave the charge may be. In this case, 
speaking for my learned brothers and myself, we are indebted to counsel 
for the defence for the assistance they have given us in the trial of this 
case; and I have no doubt you must feel equally indebted. It is a great 
benefit in the trial of a case, more particularly of this importance, that you 
should feel as we feel, that everything possible that could be urged on behalf 
178 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

of the defence has been said in this case after much thought, much study, 
much deliberation, and particularly by one who has conducted the defence 
in accordance with the highest traditions of the English bar. Mr. Sullivan 
made a speech of most striking power and eloquence. You heard it. You 
must have felt its effect, and, not only in the force of his argument in the 
speech, but also in the legal presentment of the case, it would be impossible 
to find anything that could be urged on behalf of the defence that has not 
been said with the greatest skill, and, let me add, with commendable 
courage. 

Now, gentlemen, you will remember in considering this case that in 
a trial of treason what must be in your mind is that it is a very grave 
offence. At all times, to betray the King, that is the State, that means 
the country, and that means those of us who are subjects of the King who 
live in a common society, is and must ever be a most odious charge. But 
treason in time of war by adhering to the King's enemies, by aiding and 
comforting the King's enemies, when all persons are making sacrifices in 
this country to resist the enemy, and are all combining, whatever their views 
may be, to defeat the common enemy treason in these times is almost too 
grave for expression. Gentlemen, it is because one must feel that that I 
desire to caution you in this case. This case, like all criminal cases, must 
be considered and judged calmly and dispassionately. We must be careful 
to deal with it according to the evidence in the case. You must banish 
from your mind everything you may have read or heard outside of this 
Court. You have sworn by the oaths that you took when you went into the 
jury-box to deal with the case according to the evidence; and let me 
remind you of it, because it is not very easy in a case of this description, 
where the defence have thought it right and necessary for the purposes of 
their case to introduce political considerations, to concentrate your atten- 
tion closely and exclusively upon the evidence that has been given before 
you. Let me also tell you what has been said by the learned Attorney- 
General, endorsing the view presented to you by Mr. Artemus Jones this 
morning, that it is for the Crown to satisfy you beyond all reasonable 
doubt that the prisoner is guilty of the charge made against him. It is 
not for the defence to disprove the charge. Before you find a verdict of 
guilty against the prisoner, you must be satisfied that the prosecution 
has proved it. 

Before I consider the evidence there is one other observation I want 
to make, and that is this. We have heard much in this case about politics 
in Ireland. It is impossible to refrain from making some observation upon 
the evidence that has been given. For myself, I always feel anxiety in a 
Court of justice when there is any possibility of the introduction of political 
passion. Justice is ever in jeopardy when passion is aroused. To deal with 
this case you must consider it, as I am sure you will, quite calmly and dis- 
passionately, according to the evidence. Pay no more attention to what has 
been said with regard to the condition of Ireland before the war or after 
the war than is necessary in order to understand the circumstances of this 
case, and more particularly to do justice to the defence which is set up. 
Mr. Sullivan said to you yesterday in the observations he made upon the 
defence, that he was afraid he might be saying some things that would 

179 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Lord Chief Justice 

startle you in this Court. He indeed said that he felt almost in a strange 
atmosphere. Well, gentlemen, with regard to those observations, let me 
urge you, without knowledge for one moment of the views of any one of 
you in regard to a subject upon which opinion is divided in this country, 
and even more so in Ireland, not to allow yourselves to be influenced in 
any way by any political opinion which may have been discussed or which 
may even have been put forward and urged by Mr. Sullivan in his address 
to you. I cannot but think that he paid the highest compliment to an 
English jury when he had the courage to address you as he did yesterday 
upon Ireland. It is all to the good that it was done. He did it in the 
interests of his client, to present to you his client's point of view, so that 
you might be able to gauge his client's mind, and, in order to do it, it 
was necessary that he should fearlessly put certain contentions before you. 
Gentlemen, one may dismiss the greater part of them very quickly, because 
we are not even on debatable ground. That there was conflict, Parlia- 
mentary conflict, with regard to Irish affairs for a few yeans before the 
war is only to say what has happened for a very long period. That it 
became acute between the north of Ireland and other portions of Ireland 
equally is beyond question. That during the passage of the Home Rule 
Bill, particularly, as we are told on the evidence, after the second reading, 
there were heated speeches made, parts of which have been quoted to you, is 
again quite outside the region of controversy. That even the situation was 
acute immediately before the war, you make take as established by the 
evidence, and one may say, from common knowledge. But, gentlemen, 
when you get to the war, from the 4th August, 1914, although we have 
evidence in this case that some persons did continue arming, that there 
was marching, counter-marching, and skirmishing, as it has been termed, 
for the purpose of exercise, yet at least it can be said, and must be said, 
that all parties united, not only in Great Britain, not only in the British 
Dominions, but also in Ireland, where, much to the consternation of the 
common enemy, it was found that, however deep the gulf might be between 
the north of Ireland and other portions of Ireland in times of peace,. when 
war came against the British Empire there was a union of forces which 
would resist any attack made upon the Empire. With that, I think, for 
the moment at any rate, it is unnecessary that we should go further into 
the history of Irish politics. Except, perhaps, I may remind you of this. 
We have been told in the course of the evidence that steps have been taken 
to preserve the position, at any rate during the war, up to the present 
moment, and for some further period, and that every attempt is made to 
allay any bitterness and to prevent any disunion during the continuance 
of the war. 

With those facts in mind, let me just tell you what the charge is in 
this case. It is that of adhering to the King's enemies in the Empire of 
Germany contrary to the Treason Act of 1351. The particulars of the 
offence are that Sir Roger Casement, a British subject, did on various dates 
and whilst this country was at war with the German Emperor contrive and 
intend to aid and assist the enemies of the King against the King, and 
did traitorously adhere to, aid and comfort the King's enemies in the 
Empire of Germany. That is using language which is not only well known 
180 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

in Courts of law, but is simple enough, although part of it is old-fashioned 
phraseology. You heard a very lengthy discussion as to the meaning of 
words in the statute yesterday. We have ruled in this Court, following, 
as we think, the law as laid down certainly for centuries, that to do an 
act which amounts to adhering to the King's enemies, is an offence of 
treason, although the act is committed without the realm, that is, in the 
Empire of Germany. You need not trouble yourselves about the law. It 
is for us as judges to direct you as to the law. It is for you to decide 
the facts. Those are for you and for you only, and the direction that I 
shall give you of the law will enable you to understand the case and to 
devote attention to the special points necessary, in order to determine 
whether or not the prisoner is guilty or not guilty of this offence. When 
I deal with the facts I beg of you to remember that I am not the judge 
of the facts, nor are my learned brothers ; that the judges of the facts are 
you gentlemen who sit in the jury-box. I shall make observations to you 
upon the evidence for the purpose of assisting you to arrive at a just 
conclusion, but you will remember that in so far as they may reflect any 
view which I may have formed of the facts, it is for you to come to the 
conclusion, and if you do not agree with any observation I may make upon 
the facts, then, it is for you not to pay further attention to it than to 
consider it. If you agree, then, you must, of course, act accordingly. 

Now, gentlemen, the offence of adhering to the King's enemies is 
described in the worda of the statute as ' ' giving aid and comfort to the 
" King's enemies." I direct you as a matter of law, that if a man, a 
British subject, does an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the 
enemies of the King in the conduct of the war against the King, that is, 
in law, the giving of aid and comfort to the King's enemies. Again, 
if a British subject commits an act which weakens or tends to weaken 
the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the 
enemies of the King and the country, that is, in law, the giving of aid 
and comfort to the King's enemies. If I may put it to you, the real 
point to which you must direct your attention in this matter when you 
are considering whether or not the acts done amounted to adhering to the 
King's enemies in the sense of giving aid and comfort to the King's 
enemies is : ' ' Were the acts done such as would strengthen the German 
" Emperor or such as would weaken His Majesty the King? " You must 
consider, in coming to a conclusion as to the evidence, whether, as has 
been pointed out to you by the Attorney-General for the Crown, the 
stirring up of a strife in Ireland between the north and the Nationalists, 
or the fomenting of an armed insurrection, or, indeed, the procuring or 
causing any result in Ireland which would cause disturbance and trouble 
of a serious character there, would have been of assistance to Germany 
in the conduct of this war. It does not need a very vivid imagination to 
see that if Germany could introduce arms and ammunition into Ireland for 
the purpose of helping to create a rebellion there, or strife of a serious char- 
acter, so as to occupy the attention of the British Executive, and also to 
necessitate the maintaining of a considerable number of His Majesty's 
soldiers in Ireland, that that would be assisting Germany. It would 
certainly be weakening the power of the Crown to the extent, at any rate, 

181 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Lord Chief Justice 

that it made it necessary to keep soldiers in Ireland instead of sending 
them out to the Front. 

The defence in this case does not really dispute the main facts of the 
case. The one part of the evidence which was seriously contested by 
Mr. Sullivan yesterday is not insisted upon by the Crown to-day. You 
will remember that Mr. Sullivan did attack vehemently that part of 
NeilPs evidence which was to the effect that the prisoner had told those 
who were to join the Irish Brigade that they were first to assist the Turks 
against the Russians, and then they were to assist the Germans against 
the English, and then they were to fight for their own country. You 
may dismiss that part of the evidence from your mind altogether. The 
Crown does not insist upon it, and, without making any reflection what- 
ever upon the witness Neill, says it does not ask you to act upon that, and, 
therefore, you may leave that part of the case out of consideration. It 
brings us to the real point in this case. It does not arise so much upon 
the evidence, that is, on the particular words used, as on the inferences that 
you draw from the evidence as given. If I may put it as simply as 
possible, the defence says that Sir Roger Casement only asked persons, 
these soldiers, to become members of the Irish Brigade for the purpose of 
assisting to resist the Ulster Volunteers after the war had concluded. The 
whole importance of this for the moment is whether it is right to say that 
that is the true effect of the evidence. The Crown says to you that 
that is not the true effect ; that every fact that you examine points to the 
contrary; and that what was intended was- that at the first sea victory 
Irish soldiers should be landed, and that the Irish Brigade should then be 
introduced into Ireland ; and the comment is naturally made that until 
there had been a sea victory of Germany it would be impossible for 
Germany to land, at any rate, any considerable number of Irish soldiers, 
even if they could have enrolled them in the brigade if not impossible, 
at least extremely difficult ; and the suggestion made to you by the Crown 
ia that the inducements held out and the statements made were that as 
soon ae Germany had won a sea victory those who became members of the 
Irish Brigade were to be introduced into Ireland ; and the Crown says that 
if that is the true view there is only one conclusion possible. Those are 
the two contentions. I shall have something to say to you before I close 
this case upon the view presented to you by the defence, even if you accept 
the version contended for by the defence, but I will leave that for the 
moment. 

Gentlemen, the evidence establishes the history of the prisoner, 
which is now familiar to you, and which I shall not repeat, but 
which substantially is to the effect that he was in the employ of the 
British Crown, that he served in the Foreign Office, that he acted as His 
Majesty's Consul, that he came to the period when he retired, that he 
was knighted as an honour to him in recognition of the services that he 
rendered to the King and the State, and that he was subsequently employed 
in a Commission whioh went abroad to South America to inquire into the 
atrocities of Putumayo, and that that was the condition of things till just 
a little before the war. Until this moment, a little before the war, there 
is nothing to indicate that there was any want of allegiance in him. That 
was the position then. Later, after the war, on a date which we do not 
182 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

really know, he went to Germany. How, why, in what circumstances we 
have no information ; but he went there, and the contention with which 
you are now familiar is that whilst there he committed the treason with 
which he is charged. 

High treason is an offence committed against the duties of allegiance 
to the Sovereign. It is founded on the relation of the person to the 
Crown, and on the privileges he derives from that relation. There is a 
passage, and the only passage with which I shall trouble you, in Sir Michael 
Foster's Discourse on the Law of High Treason, a very high authority, 
written by a very distinguished author, in which he says, " Natural 
" allegiance is founded in the relation every man standeth in to the 
te Crown, considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a 
"member; and on the peculiar privileges he deriveth from that relation, 
"which are, with great propriety, called his birthright. This birthright 
" nothing but his own demerit can deprive him of. It is indefeasible and 
' ' perpetual ; and, consequently, the duty of allegiance, which ariseth out 
"of it, and is inseparably connected with it, is, in consideration of law, 
" likewise unalienable and perpetual." Now, there are various kinds 
of treason. There may be the act known as compassing the King's 
death ; it may be levying war against the King ; or it may be that form of 
treason with which you are concerned in this case, the only one, therefore, 
with which you need trouble yourselves. The history of the law of 
treason in this country is of extreme interest. It shows that throughout 
centuries there has always been the attempt made, and successful attempt 
in many cases, to protect the liberty of the subject against encroachments 
of their liberty, and particularly in much more remote periods fortunately 
against encroachments of the Crown. Statutes have been passed of which 
you have heard some read. I only mean to refer to that portion of the law 
which is applicable to the case now before you in order to tell you that 
the law requires in this case that the overt acts (and I will explain to you 
what they mean in a moment) which are charged against the .prisoner 
should be proved by two witnesses to an overt act, or one witness to one 
overt act, and another witness to another overt act, both of the same 
form of treason. In this case you need not trouble yourselves about that 
.direction, except to bear in mind when you are considering the evidence 
and determining whether you can rely upon it that there must be two 
witnesses to an overt act in order to justify you in finding the prisoner 
guilty either two witnesses to one overt act or one witness to one and 
another witness to another overt act, both of the same treason. 

You may say, and probably have asked yourselves during the course of 
the case, what are overt acts? Overt acts are such acts as manifest a 
criminal intention and tend towards the accomplishment of the criminal 
object. They are acts by which the purpose is manifested and the means 
by which it is intended to be fulfilled. According to our law it is 
necessary in charging a prisoner with this offence to state in the indictment 
the overt acts upon which reliance is placed; and, again, the greatest 
care is taken that a man shall not be taken by surprise in a charge of this 
character ; and the law says that no evidence shall be given of any overt 
act which is not charged in the indictment ; the full effect, therefore, being 

183 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Lord Chief Justice 



that when the prisoner comes into Court to answer the indictment of treason 
he has the particulars given to him in writing, and at some time before 
he comes into Court, in order that he may be ready to defend himself. 
Gentlemen, I am not going to read to you the overt acts, for the reason 
that they can be summarised, I think, very briefly. You may divide 
them into two parts, the first part dealing with what I may call the Irish 
Brigade incidents, the second part dealing with the 21st April, 1916, and 
the incidents connected with that date. It is quite possible for you to come 
to the conclusion it is entirely for you that both of the sets of overt acts 
are really part and parcel of the same scheme and of the same set of 
operations. The first five overt acts alleged deal with the period between 
December, 1914, and February, 1915. The substance of the charge ie 
that the prisoner solicited and incited and endeavoured to persuade 
soldiers of the King to forsake their allegiance and to join the armed 
forces of the enemy, and to fight against the King; further, the charge 
is of circulating and distributing a leaflet, to which I will direct your 
attention later, with the object of soliciting, inciting, and persuading the 
Irish soldiers to forsake their duty to the King and to aid and assist the 
enemy in the prosecution of the war against the King; and then another 
form of the same charge is that of, in fact, persuading and procuring 
certain persons some of them are named, Bailey, Quinless, O'Callaghan, 
Keogh, Cavanagh, Greer, Scanlan, and others whose names are unknown, 
to the number of about fifty, to forsake their allegiance to the King and 
to join the forces of the enemy with a view to fight against the King 
and his subjects in the war. That substantially deals with what I call, 
for convenience and brevity, the Irish Brigade incidents. The second 
part of the charge is that in April, 1916, the prisoner set forth from 
Germany as a member of a warlike and hostile expedition undertaken and 
equipped by the enemies of the King, having for its object the introduction 
into and landing on the coast of Ireland of arms and ammunition 
intended for use in the prosecution of the war by the enemies against the 
King. 

Now, gentlemen, when considering your verdict you will also bear 
in mind that if one overt act out of the six alleged is, in your judgment, 
proved against the prisoner, that means a verdict of guilty. It is not 
necessary that you should find that all six overt acts are proved. You 
may, in your opinion, come to the conclusion that all six are proved, or 
that only some or one of them can be proved. If you do, that is sufficient 
to constitute treason. One overt act properly proved is all that is necessary 
to constitute the offence. 

The last observation I will make to you upon the law is that you 
must be satisfied before you convict the prisoner of the intention and 
purpose of the act. We were told by Mr. Sullivan yesterday that you 
had to arrive at the mind of the prisoner, and he suggested that it was 
difficult, almost impossible, for an Englishman to divine what was passing 
in the mind of an Irishman, or to understand it. You never really can 
get at the actual thought passing through a man's mind, except by con- 
sidering his actions, including, of course, his statements. A man's 
intentions are to be gathered from his acts. A man must be held to have 
intended the natural and reasonable consequences of his act. That is one 
184 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

of the fundamental principles of our law, and, after all, it is only plain 
common sense. When a man, particularly an intelligent man, does an 
act which would appear reasonably to involve certain consequences you 
are entitled to assume that he intended those consequences. You there- 
fore have to ask yourselves, did he do an act or acts of the nature which 
I have described to you, of adhering to the King's enemies, giving aid 
and comfort to the King's enemies? And you must ask yourselves, did 
he intend the reasonable consequences of this act? I will put it to you 
again so that you may understand it quite clearly. You have to determine 
whether the prisoner was contriving and intending to aid and assist the 
enemy. If what he did was calculated to aid and assist the enemy, and 
he knew it was so calculated, then, although he had another or ulterior 
purpose in view, he was contriving and intending to assist the enemy. 
It is necessary you should pay particular attention to this direction, which 
is a direction of law to you. The questions of fact upon it, of course, 
you will determine for yourselves, but it is necessary that you should 
understand that if what he did was calculated to aid the enemy, and if 
he knew or must have known that it was so calculated, then, he would be 
contriving and intending to assist the enemy, notwithstanding that he had 
another or ulterior purpose in view. Let me put it to you in another 
way. If he knew or believed that the G-erman authorities were taking 
the steps they did in collecting the Irish prisoners into one camp, 
distributing literature amongst them, forming an Irish Brigade, and 
providing them with uniforms, &c., for their own purpose, and to serve 
their own ends in the war, and he in concert with them was promoting 
the enterprise, then he was contriving and intending to assist the enemy, 
though he had another purpose to serve. If he knew or believed that 
the Irish Brigade was to be sent to Ireland during the war with a view 
to securing the national freedom of Ireland, that is, to engage in a civil 
war which would necessarily weaken and embarrass this country, then 
he was contriving and intending to assist the enemy. Gentlemen, I trust 
I have made clear to you what is the meaning of contriving and intending 
to assist the enemy, and how you must judge it. 

I propose now to consider very briefly the evidence which has been 
given. Again, I must point out to you that the statement which was 
made by the prisoner yesterday was a statement which was not made on 
oath, and it is right that I should also tell you that it was open to the 
prisoner, if he chose to avail himself of the opportunity, to go into 
the witness-box and give evidence. Let me deal with the facts. I 
am not going to read the evidence to you, because in substance, except 
for one point to which I have called your attention, there is no real 
dispute about it. I will only read such passages as deal very closely with 
the controversial element. I am now going to direct your attention to 
the evidence in the case more particularly to help you to determine 
whether the inducements held out by the prisoner to the Irish Brigade 
were to go to Ireland after the war had come to a close in order to 
resist the domination of the north of Ireland party, the Volunteers, or 
whether, as the Crown contends, the inducement held out was to go to 
Ireland after the first sea victory of the Germans to fight England, to free 
Ireland from England, and with the assistance of Germany. It is only 

185 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Lord Chief Justice 



in regard for the moment to that question that I am going to read to you 
certain passages of the evidence. 

The story as to what happened is now quite beyond dispute. At 
some time before the end of December, 1914, the prisoner is found in 
Germany whilst Germany is engaged in this gigantic and terrible war with 
this country among others. How the prisoner, a British subject, came 
there, why he was 1 there, or for what purpose he was allowed during this 
time to remain in Germany, if he was there any time, we do not know. 
We do know that in December, 1914, there had been a number of soldiers 
taken prisoner during the war; that the Irish soldiers men supposed to 
be Irish, as one witness explained it, probably meaning that everybody 
was not known to be Irish, but generally they were were gathered 
together in one camp. You have heard how they were taken from par- 
ticular camps and brought to this camp at Limburg Lahn, and whilst at 
that camp the prisoner came to them. They were then suffering all the 
torment no doubt of a prisoner of war. This man addressed them. I 
will not comment upon the language that he used. I will read it to you 
according to the testimony of the witnesses. It is for you to judge 
whether that language was not calculated and intended to seduce these men 
from allegiance to their Sovereign. You may ask, and not unreasonably, 
how comes it that when these prisoners are s-egregated into the one camp 
that the prisoner, Sir Roger Casement, is introduced into that camp 
or allowed to enter into it by the Germans? He could not get there 
without their permission. He was there, according to the evidence, 
coming and going freely according to his own will, and addressing these 
prisoners of war. You are asked to believe that that was because the 
Germans thought that the effect of his addressing them might be that a 
number of these British soldiers would become members of the brigade 
which would be known aa the Irish Brigade, formed for the purpose, at any 
rate, I will assume for the moment, of being taken to Ireland and of 
fighting for Ireland only. But you may ask, what would the effect of 
the formation of that brigade be upon Germany and upon the British 
Empire? The Attorney-General said to you, apart altogether from military 
effect, that the mere result of British soldiers having formed into a brigade 
in Germany, not to fight for England, because nobody suggests that, but 
to be equipped with arms and ammunition by Germany, and then to go to 
Ireland, if announced, if known, must create injury to this country; that 
it is calculated to strengthen Germany, because it would show the success 
that had happened in Germany over British prisoners of war, and would 
tend to weaken this country, because it would be shown that our soldiers 
were not to be relied upon, and that when they were taken prisoners of 
war they then yielded to the seduction in the German camp. You must 
consider for yourselves whether the Attorney-General's observations are 
well warranted in that when he says, " Conceive the effect either upon 
" belligerents or upon neutrals in any war," meaning, conceive the effect as 
reflected upon Germany or reflected upon England. 

Gentlemen, the passages of the evidence have been read to you, 

I am afraid, more than once. The very short passages to which I am 

going to call your attention I read because they are so important on this 

part of the case. Because if you come to the conclusion that the true 

186 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

view of the facts is that the prisoner was soliciting and attempting to 
persuade these prisoners of war to join the Irish. Brigade to be landed in 
Ireland after the first sea victory of Germany, and if you come to the 
conclusion that that does not mean after the war had come to an end, 
then, you will probably think that the Attorney- General ha made 
good his contention ; and it is for the purpose of enabling you to come to 
a conclusion on that that I read these very short passages. Cronin was 
called, the soldier. This is his statement 1 " Sir Roger Casement said 
"he was going to form an Irish Brigade, and he said, 'Why live in 
" ' hunger and misery in this camp when you can better yourselves by 
' ' ' joining the Irish Brigade which I am going to form you will be sent 
" ' to Berlin as the guests of the German Government.' . . . He said 
" in the event of Germany winning a sea battle he would land them in 
" Ireland," and then, according to the shorthand note, " and Ireland would 
"equip them." I do not think that is a true transcript of the note. 
I will treat it as struck out, and read it, " He said in the event of 
"Germany winning a eea battle he would land them in Ireland." It 
does not matter for the purposes of the case whether it is right or wrong. 

What were they to do in Ireland? Free Ireland. 
Did he say who they were to fight against? Against England. 
Did he say what would happen to them if Germany did not win? They would 
be sent to America. They would get 10 or 20 pocket money and a free passage 

That is Cronin'e statement. You remember Cronin. He was the first 
of the soldiers called. You remember his giving evidence, and you will 
judge whether there is anything that has happened in this case which 
should lead you to disbelieve Cronin. You must judge whether his evidence 
is reliable or not. Then he was cross-examined. The use of cross- 
examination is for the purpose of enabling you to test the evidence of the 
witness. The cross-examination on this part of the case is to this effect 2 

Did he speak of raising the Irish Brigade in Limburg in connection with the 
Irish Volunteers in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say that they would fight in Ireland? Yes. 

That they were to fight in Ireland ? Yes. 

And for Ireland? Yes. 

And for nobody else ? For nobody else, only for Ireland. 

Did he say they were to be landed in Ireland after the war was over ? No ; in 
the event of Germany winning a sea battle. 

In the event of Germany winning a sea battle they might be landed before the 
war was over? The war could not be over till the sea battle was won. 

Did not he speak of Germany having won the war before the brigade was to 
move to Ireland ? No. 

But the seas were to be clear before the brigade was to go to Ireland ? Yes. 

That is the whole of the evidence of Cronin upon this point. Gentle- 
men, when you are considering the testimony of a witness you may think, 
and it is entirely for you, that you place more reliance upon the actual 
words used by the witness himself than words which are put into his mouth. 
That is entirely for you. A witness comes, and he tells his own story 
in his own language, according to his own recollection, and then questions 
are put to him perfectly legitimately and properly in cross-examination 

1 P. 17. 2 P. 20. 

187 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Lord Chief Justice 



which, may be a variation of the form in -which the witness has given his 
answer. You have to consider the whole of the evidence together and 
form an opinion as to whether his statement on this point was reliable or 
not. 

The next witness was O'Brien. His evidence upon the point is to this 
effect. He, that is the prisoner, came in February, 1915. 1 

I heard him say, "Now is the time for Irishmen to fight against England; now 
is their opportunity for doing so, join the Irish Brigade." He said he came to 
form an Irish Brigade, and he wanted all Irishmen to join the Irish Brigade and 
become guests of the German Army. He said that if they were successful in 
winning the war they would land the Irish Brigade along with the German Army 
in Ireland, and they would fight against England there. If Germany did not win 
the war, then they would be sent by the German Government to America with a 
guarantee of 5 and a situation. 

You must consider there the meaning of this statement if you accept 
it, " They would land the Irish Brigade with the German Army in Ireland." 
Then in cross-examination he is asked 2 

In what you did hear, did he speak of the Irish Brigade fighting in Ireland ? Yes. 

Did he say the Irish Brigade would be used in Ireland only? In Ireland. 

Did he say they were to be transferred to Ireland when Germany had won the 
war? Yes. 

And if Germany failed to win the war they should go to America ? To 
America, yes. 

Then, again, in re-examination 3 

He said the Irish Brigade were to fight in Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say who were to take them to Ireland to fight? The German Army. 

Did he say against whom they were to fight? To fight against England. 

That is the evidence of O'Brien. The next witness is John Robinson. 
He says 4 

He said he was very glad to see so many Irishmen here, that now was our 
time to fight for Ireland and strike a blow, and he hoped we would all join the 
Irish Brigade. 

Examination continued Did he say with whom the Irish Brigade were going to 
fight? Fight against England. He said that if Germany had a victory on the sea 
they would land the Irish Brigade in Ireland. 

Then in cross-examination 5 

How long was Sir Roger Casement speaking on the occasions you have detailed to 
us the first time you heard him speak, for instance ? About a quarter of an hour to 
twenty minutes. 

He wanted you to join an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

Did he say that the Irish Brigade was to fight for Ireland? Yes. 

Did he say it was to fight in Ireland ? Yes. 

And did he address you? Did he say it was to go to Ireland when the 
Germans had won the war? No, he said if Germany had a victory on sea. 

Did he speak about Germany winning the war? Yes. 

What did he say about Germany winning the war? He always said that 
Germany would win, but we contradicted him and said they would not. 

I suggest to you that he represented when Germany had won the war that the 
Irish Brigade was to go to Ireland unless there was a victory at sea meantime. 
Was that what he said? I cannot remember that. I remember him saying if 
Germany had a victory on sea he would land us in Ireland. 

But there is no doubt it was in Ireland you were to serve ? Oh, yes, at that time. 



1 P. 23. 2 P. 24. 3 P. 25. 4 P. 26. 5 P. 27. 

188 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

Then there is one further passage in re-examination 1 

Did he say who would send the Irish Brigade to Ireland? Germany would send 
us to Ireland. 

Did he say what they were to do when they got there? Free Ireland. 

Did he say whether they would have any fighting to do? He did not go into- 
that ; he said it was to free Ireland when they got there. 

Did he say from whom they were to free Ireland? From England. 

Then there was one more witness, Michael O'Connor 2 
Can you tell us anything you heard him say ? He said, " Now is the time to fight 
"or strike a blow for Ireland," and that England was nearly beaten. 

Then there was some evidence about hissing and booing him along 
the lines. 

Did he make any remark to those that hissed him and booed him? He said 
those who hissed him were followers of Johnnie Redmond, the recruiting sergeant 
of the British Army. 

That is a statement by the witness which did not seem to have so 
much force when it was made in the witness-box. It is not so unimportant. 
It is for you to consider whether that was said, because if it was said, 
that is to say, " Those who hissed him were followers of Johnnie Redmond, 
" the recruiting sergeant of the British Army," it does not seem quite to 
tally with the suggestion that is made that the prisoner was seeking to 
obtain recruits for the Irish Volunteers to resist attacks or domination 
by the Ulster Volunteers in Ireland after the war. That is a matter for 
your consideration. I merely make the observation to you, this reference 
to Johnnie Redmond, " the recruiting sergeant of the British Army." Then 
he is cross-examined 3 

If England was nearly beaten, was not it in the context that the war was. 
nearly over? Yes. 

Do you assent to that? I assent to that. 

The war being nearly over, he was recruiting an Irish Brigade? Yes. 

Then the next witness is Michael Moore 4 

He also said the first German victory on the water he would land the Brigade 
in Ireland. 

Did he say what kind of victory? Naval victory. The Irish Brigade were to 
be landed in Ireland. 

And then he said he expected, and I stopped him and said he must not 
tell us what he expected, and he said, " He said he would land them in 
" Ireland." Then in cross-examination he says 5 

Apparently, Sir Roger Casement discussed what was to happen to the Irish 
Brigade if Germany lost the war, did not he? Yes. 

In that event the Irish Brigade would go to America? Yes. 

If Germany lost the war? I suggest to you that he said that he would land 
them in Ireland if Germany won the war? If there was a sea battle, and if 
Germany came out victorious in the first sea battle he would land the Irish Brigade 
in Ireland. 

Was there no reference to Home Rule in the event of Germany winning the 
war ; was there no reference to Home Rule ? There was one, that Germany would 
give Ireland Home Rule. 

If she won the war? If she won the war. 

But do you tell me that there was no reference to Home Rule to be won by 
the Irish Brigade? No. 

Are you sure of that? I have never heard him say it. 

J P. 29. 2 P. 32. 3 P. 33. 4 P. 34. 5 P. 34. 

189 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Lord Chief Justice 



That is all that there is in this connection. I will not read Neill's 
evidence. 

Now, gentlemen, you have got really the whole of the evidence which 
you need consider upon this point. It is not suggested to you that you 
should disbelieve these witnesses entirely. Indeed, Mr. Sullivan has told 
you that he accepts in the main the evidence that was given, and the only 
point upon which he does ask you to disregard their evidence is as to that 
part of it in which they say that they were to be landed in Ireland if 
Germany or as soon as Germany won a eea victory. Mr. Sullivan argued 
that that really meant the same thing as saying " If the war was over." 
But it ie clear at any rate that that was not the view of the soldiers, or 
some of them, because of the answers which I have read, and of which you 
will judge, because when the question is put to them about the close of the 
'war, at least one or two said, " Oh, no, not at the close of the war, if 
" Germany won the first sea victory." 

In this connection there is one document to which I must call your 
attention. It isi a document as to which there was some controversy during 
the course of the trial, the document known as exhibit No. 4. It is a leaflet 
which was distributed. There is no evidence in this case directly connecting 
Sir Roger Casement with this document. There is evidence that after Sir 
Roger Casement had come upon the scene and had made a speech or speeches 
of the character stated in the evidence that this leaflet was distributed 
amongst the Irish prisoners of war in Limburg Camp. There is 
evidence that some of these leaflets were posted up in the barrack room. 
There is evidence that the men gathered round and read them. There is 
evidence that German soldiers brought this leaflet in and introduced it in the 
camp. You will remember that evidence. I am not proposing therefore to 
read it to you. But this is the leaflet, and in considering whether or not 
the prisoner was acting with Germany for the purpose of seducing these 
men from their allegiance you must take into account this document given 
in evidence, that is to say, it is a matter which you must consider. Discard 
it if you like. If you think right to say, " Well, we are not satisfied upon 
" this, that Sir Roger Casement had anything to do with it, or knew of it," 
you are quite entitled, then, if you come to that conclusion, to disregard it. 
But equally, if you think, looking at the matter fairly, and drawing a fair 
and reasonable inference from the circumstances stated in the evidence, 
that, although it was distributed by Germans after Sir Roger Casement came 
upon the scene, it wasi part of the plan of operations between the Germans 
and the prisoner Casement, then, you must take it into your iserious 
consideration . 

This is the language of it " Irishmen, here is a chance for you to fight 

" for Ireland ! You have fought for England, your country's hereditary 

enemy. You have fought for Belgium in England's interest, though it was 

no more to you than the Fiji Islands ! Are you willing to fight for your 

own country with a view to securing the national freedom of Ireland? 

With the moral and material assistance of the German Government an 

Irish Brigade is being formed " you must consider that passage 

with a view to securing the national freedom of Ireland." You 

must consider whether that meant to free Ireland from England 

during the war, or whether it meant only to free one political 

190 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

party, what I may call the Home Rule Party in Ireland, and all those 
persons in Ireland who held the same view, from the domination of the 
Ulster movement in Ireland, which is what is suggested : whether that 
simply meansi it is the object of every man to secure his own freedom 
so that he may defend himself against Volunteers who may be marching 
up and down, as you have heard described, in the country and possibly 
over the lands of these persons. "With a view to securing the national 
" freedom of Ireland, with the moral and material assistance of the German 
" Government an Irish Brigade is being formed." That seems to show 
beyond all doubt on the face of the document that there was material 
assistance of the German Government. Then oomes this passage " The 
" object of the Irish Brigade shall be to fight solely the cause of Ireland, 
" and under no circumstances shall it be directed to any German end." 
What is suggested and what you have to consider is, that may be a very 
good way of getting Irishmen to join the Irish Brigade, particularly men 
who had been soldiers, with the notion that they would only be fighting 
for Ireland. You must consider whether if a man was fighting for Ireland 
during the war it was possible to do that against England without giving 
aid and comfort to the King's enemies. You will come to a conclusion as 
to what you think that means. Then it proceeds " The Irish Brigade 
" shall be formed, and shall fight under the Irish flag alone; the men shall 
"wear a special distinctively Irish uniform and have Irish officers. The 
" Irish Brigade shall be clothed, fed, and efficiently equipped with arms 
" and ammunition by the German Government. It will be stationed near 
"Berlin, and be treated as guests of the German Government." You 
must ask yourselves, again, why Germany should be ready to feed and 
equip and clothe these men, provide them with uniforms, and with arms 
and with ammunition, if the sole object of the Brigade was to resist the 
march and counter-march and domination of an opposed political party, 
of the Ulster Volunteers. It is not very easy to understand what the sug- 
gestion is with regard to that. You must consider it for yourselves. Why 
should Germany be ready to do this? If it was to happen during the war, 
it is comprehensible, enough. It would be to the interest of Germany, 
because it would be sowing seeds of dissension of the strongest kind in 
Ireland. But why, if it was only to happen after the war, when war 
between this country and Germany had come to an end, Germany should 
be interested in doing these acts to enable, what I may call for brevity, 
Home Rulers to get the benefit of the Home Rule Act, is not quite easy 
to understand. There it is. It is for you to consider. Then, " At the 
" end of the war the German Government undertakes to send each member 
" of the Brigade who may so desire it to the United States of America 
" with necessary means to land. The Irishmen in America are collecting 
" money for the Brigade. Those men who do not join the Irish Brigade 
" will be removed from Limburg and distributed among other camps. If 
" interested, see your company commanders. Join the Irish Brigade and 
" win Ireland's independence ! Remember Bachelor's Walk ! God save 
" Ireland ! " 

Gentlemen, that really is the whole of the evidence to which it is neces- 
sary that I should call your attention on these first five overt acts which are 
connected with what I have termed compendiously the Irish Brigade 

191 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Lord Chief Justice 



incident. I now proceed to deal with the evidence as regards the April, 1916, 
incidents. Before I do so, let me tell you that the mere fact that the 
prisoner had, by the acts proved in the evidence, committed an offence or 
offences against the law is not relevant to this charge. The facts relating to 
the 21st April, and for the few days thereafter, are only material to this 
charge if you think that these acts were committed in concert with Germany 
in pursuance of a plan of operations formed in Germany. If you come to 
that conclusion, then these acts are directly material on the charge of treason. 
Now, the first incident is on the night between the 20th and 21st 
April. There is the finding of the boat and the seeing of the light. A 
light is seen about half -past nine on the Thursday night, whatever it is. 
We know no more than that. On the morning of Good Friday, the 
2 1st April, McCarthy, the farmer, the man who had been to the well to 
eay his prayers, noticed the boat; he also found the tin box which had 
been covered with earth, according to his statement, but from which the 
earth had been displaced; he also saw the footprints of three men; he 
traced them going in the direction of his house from the sea. Later he 
found his little girl, about eight years of age, playing with revolvers. 
There are the bags which are discovered shortly after. In those bags 
there was the green flag which was produced to you, and a piece of a 
map, and in other bags other portions of a map of Ireland. Mary Gorman, 
at about half-past four in the morning, saw three strange men passing, 
going from the sea and going towards Ardfert. She identified one of the 
men as the prisoner, and said they were carrying overcoats. Where the 
boat came from we do not know. There is no evidence to show how 
that boat had got to the point where it was found. You have seen the 
photograph of it. You realise the kind of boat it is. It was there 
with the ammunition and the pistoLs and the other things, again there is 
nothing to show except the evidence of their being found as described to 
you by the witnesses. The tin box contained some 900 rounds of pistol 
ammunition. There was a flash lamp, field glasses, 40 rounds of ammuni- 
tion in a bag, and three pistols. 

I do not propose to follow through the incidents of taking the various 
things that were found to the police station. It really does not help. 
That is all for the purpose merely of identification. Later on the prisoner 
is found at about twenty minutes past one in the afternoon of 21st April, 
Good Friday, at M'Kenna's Fort. But before that the two officers, Riley 
and Sergeant Hearn, had loaded their carbines and gone out to search 
the country. After searching the country for some little time they came 
to M'Kenna's Fort, which you have heard described to you. It seems to 
be a circular Irish ruin. It was described as with trenches round it, or 
a trench 9 to 14 feet deep, and covered with brushwood. Riley has told 
you that he saw the prisoner, that he covered him with his rifle, and that 
thereupon he was asked who he was, and he gave the name of Richard 
Morton, Denham, Bucks. He said he had arrived at Dublin, came on to 
County Kerry, then to Mount Brandon, and from there to the fort, and 
had arrived there, that is, at the fort, in the morning, and said he intended 
to go to Tralee. The whole of this incident requires your careful 
examination and consideration. You must ask yourselves why was it 
192 




'Send another, ship to - ^ 

S'g'^d rifles and amunitijon fo - 

Cannons f with plenty of akiunltion are needegsend them t 
, more explosives ', 

v03s&l:lf-poss r ible 




The writing in pencil on the back of the code described in 
Constable Riley's evidence. 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up, 

Lord Chief Justice 

that the prisoner arrived in this way in Ireland? Why was it he arrived 
in this boat with this ammunition, and was found afterwards at this fort 
where, according to his own statement, he had been for some hours, and 
why did he give a false name? The boy Collins who> was called before 
you told you about the piece of paper that he saw drop from the prisoner's 
hand at his back, and it was subsequently picked up by the boy. He 
went on with his pony and trap, as he was told to do, or asked to do, I 
think, to Mary Gorman's for the purpose of Mary Gorman identifying the 
prisoner as one of the three men she had seen. Then he goes back at 
some later stage with another boy, or has another boy with him, Tom 
Doone, and he tells Doone to pick up that piece of paper which was, 
he says, where it had been dropped ; it was given to him, and then he 
took it back and handed it to the police. That piece of paper is exhibit 18, 
of which you have a photograph. That is the code. You remember the 
evidence about that code. There are the figures first, and then the words 
in English showing what the figures meant. You have heard the criticism 
which has been passed upon that code by the Attorney-General. Reference 
has been made to the various orders that there are, or requests, and you 
are asked to say that that cannot have been done with any innocent 
intention, but, moreover, and what is more material and important, can 
only have been done in concert with Germany, and that the object of 
this code, and of the carrying of this code by the prisoner, was to enable 
him to send messages somewhere to some one which could not be given 
openly, which had to be given in a code which nobody could understand, 
and therefore these figures were adopted in the code so that the person 
receiving them should know what was meant and nobody else. Your 
attention was directed to just a few of the sentences or part sentences 
" Further ammunition is needed. Further rifles are needed. How many 
"rifles will you send us? How much ammunition will you send us? 
:c Will send plan about landing. Await details about sending. Send 
11 another ship to . Send rifles and ammunition. Cannons 

" and plenty of ammunition are needed. Send them. Send more 
" explosives. Send vessel if possible." 

Those are some of the salient features of this code. Then there is 
the statement, which is rather difficult to decipher, at the back of the 
document, which says " This holds good from 22nd April till 20th May. 
"If by then no news, friends' station will be closed for good, after that 
" only by cable to," then an address, Davos Village, Switzerland. You 
must ask yourselves what is the meaning of that? Why was the prisoner 
carrying it? And, more important, why did he drop it in that way when 
the police arrested him? There was also evidence of the finding of a 
piece of paper at the place where he had been, which has no relevancy 
to the matter into which you are inquiring, except that it is written in 
German characters and in the German language. Then there is further 
the finding of the sleeping car ticket from Berlin to Wilhelmshaven. 
That is a ticket for the night of the llth to the 12th April, and is quite 
clearly a ticket issued by the German railway, and apparently to Wilhelms- 
haven. That was found, you will remember, in the pocket of one of 
three overcoats. There is nothing to show that that was the prisoner 
o 193 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Lord Chief Justice 

Casement's overcoat. It is only evidence that it is one of the three. 
You will also bear in mind in this connection that there was some evidence 
you must judge of the value of it that in the figures on the code 
which were to be used as the cypher, the " 7 " is a German " 7," or at 
least a " 7 " such as is usually written in German. It is rather striking 
if you look through it, as I have no doubt you have done, that all these 
" 7's " are made in that particular way, and certainly not as a " 7 " is 
usually written in this country. 

From all that evidence you are asked to draw the inference, and if 
you think right you are entitled to draw the inference, that the prisoner 
had come from Germany; that he was acting in concert with the Germans. 
In this connection you naturally would ask yourselves, how is it that 
Germany allowed this man, and at least one other, who has been identified, 
and who was in the Irish Brigade, to leave Germany and to land, if you 
are satisfied they did land, from that boat on this wild seashore in 
Ireland ? The suggestion made to you is that, of course, it was permitted 
because it was part of the plan of operation. 

Later in the day of the 2 list April, somewhere about six o'clock in 
the evening, in the Atlantic Ocean, about 90 miles from the southern 
coast of Ireland, the vessel " Aud " is discovered. She was sighted by 
H.M.S. " Bluebell " off the south-west coast. She was painted with 
Norwegian colours, two forward and two aft. She was signalled by the 
" Bluebell," and she replied that she was bound for Genoa from Bergen. 
The " Bluebell " thereupon told her to follow. You remember the 
incident, the firing of the shot across her bows, and then she followed. 
The " Bluebell" was taking her to Queenstown. Queenstown was about 
138 miles, as was described, to the east of the spot where the lc Aud " 
was found. Due east clearly not, as Mr. Sullivan was quite right in 
contending. It is apparent to any one with very little knowledge of Ire- 
land that this vessel would have to go further to the southward and then 
turn to the east to get to Queenstown. Then when she is within 3J miles 
of Queenstown she seemed to stop her engines, and then a cloud of white 
smoke appeared ; two boats were lowered ; flags of truce were carried in 
these boats; in these boats were twenty German bluejackets and three 
officers, two of them being identified as German naval officers; and they 
are taken on board the " Bluebell " as prisoners of war. Within a very 
few minutes, some ten minutes, of the cloud of white smoke being seen 
the " Aud " blows up and sinks. We have the evidence of Dempsey, 
the diver, of what he found when he went there, I think, on 10th May or 
about that time. He produced to us here in Court a rifle which, he said, 
was typical of a number of rifles which he saw there, not pledging himself 
to this one rifle being exactly like the others, but he said all similar in 
pattern ; and that has been identified by the colonel in the Russian Army 
as a rifle of the Imperial Service of Russia made in the year 1905. A 
cartridge and clip were also produced to us. The clip is made in Russia, 
and identified as being the clip that was used by the Imperial Service. 
The cartridge is not identified because, as the colonel told us, it has not 
the marks on it which he would expect to find if it had been made in the 
Russian Service; but it is a cartridge which he says would fit the Russian 
194 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

rifle. Rifle butts were found, and one of them was produced to you 
here in Court. A bayonet sheath was also produced, of which, as far as 
one knows, there is very little evidence. It seems to have oome from 
South America, but, at any rate, we do not know. That is the safest 
way to put it. I ought to have told you it comes in at this moment 
that just before the vessel sank and before the white smoke was seen to 
issue about that time two flags were broken at the masthead, and they 
were then seen to be German naval ensigns. 

Upon that evidence you are asked to conclude that this vessel was 
not a vessel bound from Bergen to Genoa, but that she was, in fact, a 
German vessel, or a vessel used for German purposes, and that she was 
painted with Norwegian colours in order to deceive the ever-vigilant 
British Navy; that she was engaged in an operation of landing 
arms and ammunition in Ireland, because besides the cartridge that was 
produced, Dempsey told us there were thousands of cartridges which he 
saw lying by the ship when he went to the bottom of the sea. He was 
only able to conduct hi operations for one day, or at one time, because 
the weather got very bad, and then he had to abandon it. But that is 
what he told you he saw. He described it as " thousands of cartridges 
"lying about in the neighbourhood of the ship/' and the question for 
you upon this is, whether you think right to draw the inference that 
this vessel was engaged in this operation for the Germans of landing 
arms and ammunition in Ireland. It is said she was not going to Genoa. 
What would she be doing at Genoa with these old rifles and ammunition? 
Why was she painted in this way? When you get the two naval ensigns 
at the masthead, at least, it makes it quite plain that she was: engaged 
in German and naval matters. If there remained any doubt about it, the 
fact that twenty German bluejackets and two officers were on board and 
taken prisoner of war, puts the matter beyond all doubt. 

You may very naturally say to yourselves, well, how perfectly absurd 
to suggest that a vessel of this kind was going from Bergen to Genoa 
carrying these German sailors, naval men, and German officers with all this 
ammunition. Of course, if this vessel were found hundreds or thousands 
of mile from Ireland that would not justify you in coming to the con- 
clusion that they were intended for Ireland, but when she is found, as she 
was, 90 miles from the south-west coast of Ireland on the evening of this 
very 21st April, Good Friday, you probably will ask yourselves, was it 
a pure coincidence that that vessel happened to be there so soon after the 
prisoner Casement and another man had been seen in Ireland with all the 
attendant circumstances- which I have already described to you, and which 
you have heard stated in evidence? The Crown says to you it is not a 
coincidence. The Crown says this is part of the concerted operation which 
was then taking place ; it was all in pursuance of the scheme, of a similar 
scheme which had been formed from December, 1914, to February, 1915, 
and .onwards, when these speeches were made by the prisoner, to get Irish 
soldiers to join the Irish Brigade. They suggest to you that this is not 
a mere chance, that Germany should just at that moment and on that day 
have been engaged in landing arms or in attempting to land arms and 
ammunition at some point on the coast of Ireland. It is not suggested, 
and certainly the evidence does not establish, that this vessel was going to 

195 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Lord Chief Justice 

Tralee. But that really does not matter at all. It is quite immaterial 
to what points in Ireland she was going if you come to the conclusion that 
she was making for Ireland and intending to land there when she found a 
favourable opportunity in order to put her arms and ammunition on the 
shore. That matter is* entirely one for you. It is purely a matter of 
fact. I can give you no direction on law about it except the one I have 
already given to you, and that is, that if on this evidence you think fit to 
draw the inference the Crown asks you to draw, you are entitled to do it. If 
you think that it is not sufficient, you are entitled to reject it. It is 
entirely for you. 

Now, gentlemen, the only other incident in connection with this 
matter that is worth referring to is the maps. We have not examined 
them, but they are here in Court. There are a number of portions of a 
map of Ireland which were put together by Colonel Gordon, and, as he 
has told you, they contain evidence, according to the view that he pre- 
sented to you, that they were not made in this country, because he said 
the meridian was numbered from Ferro, and not from Greenwich, and also 
because the scale was slightly different from that adopted in this country. 
The meridian of Ferro, he told us, is used in the maps of Central Europe, 
and that is as far as we can get with it, and there we must leave it. 
It all forms part and parcel of the one story which is suggested to 
you in connection with this matter, and if on consideration, having 
regard to the evidence that has been given, drawing such inferences as 
you think are fair and reasonable inferences to b drawn in the circum- 
stances, you come to the conclusion that the position of the " Aud " at 
this time, really synchronising as it did with the advent of the prisoner a 
little earlier in the morning on the coast of Curraghane, all pointed to an 
attempt to land, arms and ammunition for the purpose of assisting 
Germany by helping those who wished either to create discontent, or, it 
might be, to rebel in Ireland, and that if there were such persons, and 
Germany could manage to land her arms and ammunition at that time, it 
would all be very useful, and would assist in that way, and consequently 
would be a weakening of the forces of the King, then you would draw the 
inference the Crown asks you to draw. That is the (substance of this 
matter, and it is not necessary that I should read to you in any detail or 
at any length the evidence upon it. 

Gentlemen, that really concludes the whole of the evidence in this 
case. I have already said to you all that I think it necessary to say upon 
the law. I shall not repeat it. I will conclude only by impressing upon 
you that if you have a reasonable doubt in the matter after considering 
the evidence it is your duty to acquit the prisoner. But if, after viewing 
all the facts and circumstances, the conviction is borne in upon you that 
this prisoner has committed the offence with which he is charged, then, 
gentlemen, it is your duty to return a verdict to that effect, and to take no 
regard of the consequences which must follow. Will you consider your 
verdict 1 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORY Gentlemen, if you want any of the exhibits that 
have be^n referred to you can have them by asking. 

The jury retired at 2.53 p.m. 
196 



Lord Chief Justice's Summing Up. 

Lord Chief Justice 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There is gome request about a map. There 
is no map of Ireland that has been proved in the case except the one to 
which Colonel Gordon deposed. 

Mr. BODKIN Except the one which is in pieces. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The jury would like to see the original code 
found and an authentic specimen of the initials and signature of the 
prisoner. None such has been proved. The original code, of course, 
they can have. That we will send in to them. They also ask for an 
original copy of the circular posted at Limburg Camp, but I understand 
that was not proved. 

Mr. ARTEMUS JONES No. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I think there is a specimen of the signature 
and handwriting of the prisoner, the letter written when he received his 
knighthood, exhibit 32. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is quite true. I think it is better not 
to put it in. I think really what they want is the initials). One sees 
why they may have been asking for it. I think it better to treat it that 
there is no evidence of it and leave it there. The original code, exhibit 18, 
shall be sent in, and also the map. 

At a later stage, 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The jury have asked for a copy of the 
indictment, which we will send them, and they also ask for a copy of the 
evidence, but we do not propose to send that. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL If your lordship pleases. 

The jury returned into Court at 3.48. 

The KING'S CORONER Gentlemen of the jury, will you answer to your 
names ? 

The names of the jury were called over. 

The KING'S CORONER Are you agreed upon your verdict? 

The FOREMAN OF THE JURY We are. 

The KING'S CORONER How say you; do you find the prisoner, Sir 
Roger David Casement, guilty or not guilty of the high treason whereof he 
stands indicted? 

The FOREMAN OF THE JURY Guilty. 

The KING'S CORONER You find Sir Roger David Casement guilty of 
high treason, and is that the verdict of you all? 

The FOREMAN OF THE JURY Yes. 

The KING'S CORONER Sir Roger David Casement, you stand convicted 
of high treason. What have you to say for yourself why the Court should 
not pass sentence and judgment upon you to die according to law? 

The PRISONER My Lord Chief Justice, as I wish to reach a much wider 
audience than I see before me here, I intended to read all that I propose to 
say. What I shall read now is something I wrote more than twenty days 
ago. I may say, my lord, at once, that I protest against the jurisdiction 

197 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Sir Roger Casement 

of this Court in my case on this charge, and the argument that I am now 
going to read is addressed not to this Court, but to my own countrymen. 

There is an objection, possibly not good in law, but surely good on 
moral grounds, against the application to me here of this old English 
statute, 565 years old, that seeks to deprive an Irishman to-day of life 
and honour, not for "adhering to the King's enemies," but for adhering 
to his own people. 

When this statute was passed, in 1351, what was the state of men's 
minds on the question of a far higher allegiance that of a man to God 
and His kingdom? The law of that day did not permit a man to forsake 
his church or deny his God save with his life. The " heretic " then had the 
same doom as the " traitor/' 

To-day a man may forswear God and His heavenly kingdom without 
fear or penalty, all earlier statutes having gone the way of Nero's Edicts 
against the Christians, but that Constitutional phantom, "The King," can 
still dig up from the dungeons and torture chambers of the Dark Ages a 
law that takes a man's life and limb for an exercise of conscience. 

If true religion rests on love, it is equally true that loyalty rests on 
love. The law I am charged under has no parentage in love and claims 
the allegiance of to-day on the ignorance and blindness of the past. 

I am being tried, in truth, not by my peers of the live present, but 
by the peers of the dead past; not by the civilisation of the twentieth 
century, but by the brutality of the fourteenth ; not even by a statute 
framed in the language of an enemy land so antiquated is the law that 
must be sought to-day to slay an Irishman, whose offence is that he puts 
Ireland first. 

Loyalty is a sentiment, not a law. It rests on love, not on restraint. 
The Government of Ireland by England rests on restraint and not on 
law ; and since it demands no love it can evoke no loyalty. 

But this statute is more absurd even than it is antiquated ; and if it is 
potent to hang one Irishman, it is still more potent to gibbet all Englishmen. 

Edward III. was King not only of the realm of England, but also of 
the realm of France, and he was not King of Ireland. Yet his dead hand 
to-day may pull the noose around the Irishman's neck whose Sovereign 
he was not, but it can strain no strand around the Frenchman's throat 
whose Sovereign he was. For centuries the successors of Edward III. 
claimed to be Kings of France, and quartered the arms of France on their 
royal shield down to the Union with Ireland on 1st January, 1801. 
Throughout these hundreds of years these " Kings of France " were con- 
stantly at war with their realm of France and their French subjects, who 
should have gone from birth to death with an obvious fear of 
treason before their eyes. But did they? Did the "Kings of France" 
resident here at Windsor or in the Tower of London, hang, draw, and 
quarter as a traitor every Frenchman for 400 years who fell into their 
hands with arms in his hand? On the contrary, they received embassies 
of these traitors, presents from these traitors, even knighthood itself 
at the hands of these traitors, feasted with them, tilted with them, fought 
with them but did not assassinate them by law. Judicial assassination 
to-day is reserved only for one race of the King's subjects, for Irishmen; 
for those who cannot forget their allegiance to the realm of Ireland. 
198 



The Prisoner's Speech. 

Sir Roger Casement 

The Kings of England as such had no rights in Ireland up to the time 
of Henry VIII. , save such as rested on compact and mutual obligation 
entered between them and certain princes, chiefs, and lord of Ireland. This 
form of legal right, such as it was, gave no King of England lawful power 
to impeach an Irishman for high treason under this statute of King 
Edward III. of England until an Irish Act, known as Poyning's Law, the 
10th of Henry VII., was passed in 1494 at Drogheda, by the Parliament 
of the Pale in Ireland, and enacted as law in that part of Ireland. But if 
by Poyning's Law an Irishman of the Pale could be indicted for high 
treason under this Act, he could be indicted only in one way and before one 
tribunal by the laws of the realm of Ireland and in Ireland. The very- 
law of Poyning's, which, I believe, applies this statute of Edward III. to 
Ireland, enacted also for the Irishman's defence, " All those laws by which 
" England claims her liberty." And what is the fundamental charter 
of an Englishman's liberty? That he shall be tried by his peers. With all 
respect I assert this Court is to me, an Irishman, not a jury of my peers 
to try me in this vital issue, for it is patent to every man of conscience 
that I have a right, an indefeasible right, if tried at all, under this statute 
of high treason, to be tried in Ireland, before an Irish Court and by an 
Irish jury. This Court, this jury, the public opinion of this country, 
England, cannot but be prejudiced in varying degree against me, most of 
all in time of war. I did not land in England; I landed in Ireland. It 
was to Ireland I came; to Ireland I wanted to come; and the last place 
I desired to land in was England. But for the Attorney- General of England 
there is only " England " there is no Ireland, there is only the law of 
England no right of Ireland ; the liberty of Ireland and of Irishmen is to 
be judged by the power of England. Yet for me, the Irish outlaw, there 
is a land of Ireland, a right of Ireland, and a charter for all Irishmen to 
appeal to, in the last resort, a charter that even the very statutes of 
England itself cannot deprive us of nay, more, a charter that Englishmen 
themselves assert as the fundamental bond of law that connects the two 
kingdoms. This charge of high treason involves a moral responsibility, 
as the very terms of the indictment against myself recite, inasmuch as I 
committed the acts I am charged with, to the "evil example of others in 
"the like case." What was this "evil example" I set to others in "the 
"like case," and who were these others? The "evil example" charged 
is that I asserted the rights of my own country, and the " others " I 
appealed to to aid my endeavour were my own countrymen. The example 
was given not to Englishmen, but to Irishmen, and the " like case" can 
never arise in England, but only in Ireland. To Englishmen I set no evil 
example, for I made no appeal to them. I asked no Englishman to help 
me. I asked Irishmen to fight for their rights. The "evil example" 
was only to other Irishmen who might come after me, and in " like case " 
seek to do as I did. How, then, since neither my example nor my appeal 
was addressed to Englishmen, can I be rightfully tried by them? 

If I did wrong in making that appeal to Irishmen to join with me in 
an effort to fight for Ireland, it is by Irishmen, and by them alone, I can be 
rightfully judged. From this Court and its jurisdiction I appeal to those 
I am alleged to have wronged, and to those I am alleged to have injured 
by my " evil example," and claim that they alone are competent to decide 

199 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Sir Roger Casement 

my guilt or my innocence. If they find me guilty, the statute may affix 
the penalty, but the statute does not override or annul my right to seek 
judgment at their hands. 

This is so fundamental a right, so natural a right, so obvious a right, 
that it is clear the Crown were aware of it when they brought me by force 
and by stealth from Ireland to this country. It was not I who landed in 
England, but the Crown who dragged me here, away from my own 
country to which I had turned with a price upon my head, away from 
my own countrymen whose loyalty is not in doubt, and safe from the 
judgment of my peers whose judgment I do not shrink from. I admit no 
other judgment but theirs. I accept no verdict save at their hands. I 
assert from this dock that I am being tried here, not because it is just, 
but because it is unjust. Place me before a jury of my own countrymen, 
be it Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist, Sinn Feineach or 
Orangemen, and I shall accept the verdict and bow to the statute and 
all its penalties. But I shall accept no meaner finding against me than 
that of those whose loyalty I endanger by my example and to whom alone 
I made appeal. If they adjudge me guilty, then guilty I am. It is not I 
who am afraid of their verdict; it is the Crown. If this be not so, why 
fear the test? I fear it not. I demand it as my right. 

That, my lord, is the condemnation of English rule, of English-made 
law, of English Government in Ireland, that it dare not rest on the will 
of the Irish people, but it exists in defiance of their will that it is a rule 
derived not from right, but from conquest. Conquest, my lord, gives no 
title, and if it exists over the body, it fails over the mind. It can exert 
no empire over men's reason and judgment and affections; and it is from 
this, law of conquest without title to the reason, judgment, and affection of 
my own countrymen that I appeal. 

My lord, I beg to say a few more words. As I say, that was my 
opinion arrived at many days ago while I was a prisoner. I have no 
hesitation in re-affirming it here, and I hope that the gentlemen of the 
pressi who did not hear me yesterday may have heard me distinctly to-day. 
I wish my words to go much beyond this Court. 

I would add that the generous expressions of sympathy extended me 
from many quarters, particularly from America, have touched me very 
much. In that country, as in my own, I am sure my motives are under- 
stood and not misjudged for the achievement of their liberties has been 
an abiding inspiration to Irishmen and to all men elsewhere rightly 
struggling to be free in like cause. 

My Lord Chief Justice, if I may continue, I am not called upon, I 
conceive, to say anything in answer to the inquiry your lordship has 
addressed to me why sentence should not be passed upon me. Since I 
do not admit any verdict in this Court, I cannot, my lord, admit the 
fitness of the sentence that of necessity must follow it from this Court. 
I hope I shall be acquitted of presumption if I say that the Court I see 
before me now is not this High Court of Justice of England, but a far 
greater, a far higher, a far older assemblage of justices that of the people 
of Ireland. Since in the acts which have led to this trial it was the people 
of Ireland I sought to serve and them alone I leave my judgment and 
my sentence in their handa. 
200 



The Prisoner's Speech. 

Sir Roger Casement 

Let me pass from myself and my own fate to a far more pressing, 
as it is a far more urgent theme not the fate of the individual Irishman 
who may have tried and failed, but the claims and the fate of the country 
that has not failed. Ireland has. outlived the failure of all her hopes and 
yet she still hopes. Ireland has seen her sons aye, and her daughters 
too suffer from generation to generation always for the same cause, 
meeting always the same fate, and always at the hands of the same power; 
and always a fresh generation has passed on to withstand the same 
oppression. For if English authority be omnipotent a power, as Mr. 
Gladstone phrased it, that reaches to the very ends of the earth Irish 
hope exceeds the dimensions of that power, excels its authority, and renews 
with each generation the claims of the last. The cause that begets this 
indomitable persistency, the faculty of preserving through centuries of 
misery the remembrance of lost liberty, this surely is the noblest cause men 
ever strove for, ever lived for, ever died for. If this be the case I stand 
here to-day indicted for, and convicted of sustaining, then I stand in a 
goodly company and a right noble succession. 

My counsel has referred to the Ulster Volunteer movement, and I will 
not touch at length upon that ground save only to say this, that neither 
I nor any of the leaders of the Irish Volunteers who were founded in 
Dublin in November, 1913, had quarrel with the Ulster Volunteers as 
such, who were born a year earlier. Our movement was not directed 
against them, but against the men who misused and misdirected the 
courage, the sincerity, and the local patriotism of the men of the north of 
Ireland. On the contrary, we welcomed the coming of the Ulster Volun- 
teers, even while we deprecated the aims and intentions of those English- 
men who sought to pervert to an English party use to the mean purposes 
of their own bid for place and power in England the armed activities of 
simple Irishmen. We aimed at winning the Ulster Volunteers to the cause 
of a united Ireland. We aimed at uniting all Irishmen in a natural and 
national bond of cohesion based on mutual self-respect. Our hope was a 
natural one, and if left to ourselves, not hard to accomplish. If external 
influences of disintegration would but leave us alone, we were sure that 
Nature itself must bring us together. It was not we, the Irish Volunteers, 
who broke the law, but a British party. The Government had permitted 
the Ulster Volunteers to be armed by Englishmen, to threaten not merely 
an English party in its hold on office, but to threaten that party through 
the lives and blood of Irishmen. The battle was to be fought in Ireland 
in order that the political "outs" of to-day should be the "ins" of 
to-morrow in Great Britain. A law designed for the benefit of Ireland 
was to be met, not on the floor of Parliament, where the fight had 
indeed been won, but on the field of battle much nearer home, where 
the armies would be composed of Irishmen slaying each other for some 
English party again; and the British Navy would be the chartered 
" transports " that were to bring to our shores a numerous assemblage of 
military and ex-military expert in the congenial and profitable business of 
holding down subject populations abroad. Our choice lay in submitting 
to foreign lawlessness or resisting it, and we did not hesitate to choose. 
But while the law breakers had armed their would-be agents openly, and 
had been permitted to arm them openly, we were met within a few days 

201 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Sir Roger Casement 

of the founding of our movement, that aimed at united Ireland from within, 
by Government action from without direct against our obtaining any arms 
at all. The manifesto of the Irish Volunteers, promulgated at a public 
meeting in Dublin on 25th November, 1913, stated with sincerity the 
aims of the organisation as I have outlined them. If the aims contained 
in that manifesto were a threat to the unity of the British Empire, then 
so much the worse for the Empire. An Empire that can only be held 
together by one section of its governing population perpetually holding 
down and sowing dissension among a smaller but none the less governing 
section, must have some canker at its heart, some ruin at its root. The 
Government that permitted the arming of those whose leaders declared 
that Irish national unity was a thing that should be opposed by force of 
arms, within nine days of the issue of our manifesto of goodwill to Irish- 
men of every creed and class, took steps to nullify our efforts by prohibiting 
the import of all arms into Ireland as if it had been a hostile and blockaded 
coast. And this proclamation of the 4th December, 1913, known as the 
Arms Proclamation, was itself based on an illegal interpretation of the 
law, as the Chief Secretary has now publicly confessed. The proclamation 
was met by the loyalists of Great Britain with an act of still more lawless 
defiance an act of widespread gun-running into Ulster that was denounced 
by the Lord Chancellor of England as " grossly illegal and utterly uncon- 
" stitutional." How did the Irish Volunteers meet the incitements of 
civil war that were uttered by the party of law and order in England when 
they saw the prospect of deriving political profit to themselves from blood- 
shed among Irishmen? 

I can answer for my own acts and speeches. While one English 
party was responsible for preaching a doctrine of hatred designed to bring 
about civil war in Ireland, the other, and that the party in power, took 
no active steps to restrain a propaganda that found its advocates in the 
Army, Navy, and Privy Council in the Houses of Parliament and in the 
State Church a propaganda the methods of whose expression were so 
" grossly illegal and utterly unconstitutional " that even the Lord 
Chancellor of England could find only words and no repressive action to 
apply to them. Since lawlessness sat in high places in England and 
laughed at the law as at the custodians of the law, what wonder was it 
that Irishmen should refuse to accept the verbal protestations of an English 
Lord Chancellor as a sufficient safeguard for their lives and their liberties 1 
I know not how all my colleagues on the Volunteer Committee in Dublin 
reviewed the growing menace, but those with whom I was in cloisest 
co-operation redoubled, in face of these threats from without, our efforts 
to unite all Irishmen from within. Our appeals were made to Protestant 
and Unionist as much almost as to Catholic and Nationalist Irishmen. 
We hoped that by the exhibition of affection and goodwill on our part 
towards our political opponents in Ireland we should yet succeed in winning 
them from the side of an English party whose sole interest in our country 
lay in its oppression in the past, and in the present in its degradation 
to the mean and narrow needs of their political animosities. It is true 
that they based their actions, so they averred, on " fears for the Empire," 
and on a very diffuse loyalty that took in all the peoples of the Empire, 
202 






The Prisoner's Speech. 



Sir Roger Casement 

save only the Irish. That blessed word "Empire " that bears so para- 
doxical a resemblance to charity ! For if charity begins at home, ' ' Empire ' ' 
begins in other men's homes, and both may cover a multitude of sins. I 
for one was determined that Ireland was much more to me than ' ' Empire, ' ' 
and that if charity begins at home so must loyalty. Since arms were 
so necessary to make our organisation a reality, and to give to the minds 
of Irishmen menaced with the most outrageous threats a sense of security, 
it was our bounden duty to get arms before all else. I decided with 
this end in view to go to America, with surely a better right to appeal 
to Irishmen there for help in an hour of great national trial than those 
envoys of " Empire " could assert for their week-end descents upon 
Ireland, or their appeals to Germany. If, as the right honourable gentle- 
man, the present Attorney- General, asserted in a speech at Manchester, 
Nationalists would neither fight for Home Rule nor pay for it, it was our 
duty to show him that we knew how to do both. Within a few weeks 
of my arrival in the States the fund that had been opened to secure 
arms for the Volunteers of Ireland amounted to many thousands of pounds. 
In every case the money subscribed, whether it came from the purse of 
the wealthy man or the still readier pocket of the poor man, was Irish 
gold. 

Then came the war. As Mr. Birrell said in his evidence recently 
laid before the Commission of Inquiry into the causes of the late rebellion 
in Ireland, " the war upset all our calculations/ 7 It upset mine no less 
than Mr. Birrell' s, and put an end to my mission of peaceful effort in 
America. War between Great Britain and Germany meant, as I believed, 
ruin for all the hopes we had founded on the enrolment of the Irish 
Volunteers. A constitutional movement in Ireland is never very far from 
a breach of the constitution, as the Loyalists of Ulster had been so eager 
to show us. The cause is not far to seek. A constitution to be main- 
tained intact must be the achievement and the pride of the people them- 
selves; must rest on their own free will and on their own determination 
to sustain it, instead of being something resident in another land whose 
chief representative is an armed force armed not to protect the popula- 
tion, but to hold it down. We had seen the working of the Irish consti- 
tution in the refusal of the army of occupation at the Curragh to obey 
the orders of the Crown. And now that we were told the first duty of an 
Irishman was to enter that army, in return for a promissory note, pay- 
able after death a scrap of paper that might or might not be redeemed, 
I felt over there in America that my first duty was to keep Irishmen at 
home in the only army that could safeguard our national existence. If 
small nationalities were to be the pawns in this game of embattled giants, 
I saw no reason why Ireland should shed her blood in any cause but her 
own, and if that be treason beyond the seas I am not ashamed to avow 
it or to answer for it here with my life. And when we had the doctrine 
of Unionist loyalty at last " Mausers and Kaisers and any King you 
" like," and I have heard that at Hamburg, not far from Limburg on 
the Lahn I felt I needed no other warrant than that these words con- 
veyed to go forth an3 do likewise. The difference between us was that 
the Unionist champions chose a path they felt would lead to the woolsack ; 

203 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Sir Roger Casement 

while I went a road I knew must lead to the dock. And the event proves 
we were both right. The difference between us was that my " treason " 
was based on a ruthless sincerity that forced me to attempt in time and 
season to carry out in action what I fiaid in word whereas their treason 
lay in verbal incitements that they knew need never be made good in 
their bodies. And so, I am prouder to stand here to-day in the traitor's 
dock to answer this impeachment than to fill the place of my right honour- 
able accusers. 

We have been told, we have been aeked to hope, that after this war 
Ireland will get Home Rule, as a reward for the life blood shed in a cause 
which whoever else its success may benefit can surely not benefit Ireland. 
And what will Home Rule be in return for what its vague promise has 
taken and still hopes to take away from Ireland? It is not necessary to 
climb the painful stairs of Irish history that treadmill of a nation whose 
labours are as. vain for her own uplifting a>s the convict's exertions are 
for his redemption to review the long list of British promises made only 
to be broken of Irish hopes raised only to be dashed to the ground. 
Home Rule when it comes, if come it does, will find an Ireland drained of 
all that is vital to its very existence unless it be that unquenchable hope 
we build on the graves of the dead. We are told that if Irishmen go by 
the thousand to die, not for Ireland, but for Flanders, for Belgium, for 
a patch of sand on the deserts of Mesopotamia, or a rocky trench on the 
heights of Gallipoli, they are winning self-government for Ireland. But 
if they dare to lay down their lives on their native soil, if they dare to 
dream even that freedom can be won only at home by men resolved to 
fight for it there, then they are traitors to their country, and their dream 
and their deaths alike are phases of a dishonourable phantasy. But 
history is not so recorded in other lands. In Ireland alone in this 
twentieth century is loyalty held to be a crime. If loyalty be something 
less than love and more than law, then we have had enough of such loyalty 
for Ireland or Irishmen. If we are to be indicted as criminals, to be 
shot as murderers, to be imprisoned as convicts because our offence is 
that we love Ireland more than we value our lives, then I know not what 
virtue resides in any offer of self-government held out to brave men on 
such terms. Self-government is our right, a thing born in us at birth; 
a thing no more to be doled out to us or withheld from us by another 
people than the right to life itself than the right to feel the sun or 
mell the flowers, or to love our kind. It is only from the convict these 
things are withheld for crime committed and proven and Ireland that 
has wronged no man, that has injured no land, that has sought no 
dominion over others Ireland is treated to-day among the nations of the 
world as if she was a convicted criminal. If it be treason to fight against 
such an unnatural fate as this, then I am proud to be a rebel, and shall 
cling to my " rebellion " with the last drop of my blood. If there be 
no right of rebellion against a state of things that no savage tribe would 
endure without resistance, then I am sure that it is better for men to 
fight and die without right than to live in such a state of right as this. 
Where all your rights become only an accumulated wrong; where men 
must beg with bated breath for leave to subsist in their own land, to think 
204 



The Prisoner's Speech. 

Sir Roger Casement 

their own thoughts, to sing their own songs, to garner the fruits of their 
own labours and even while they beg, to see things inexorably with- 
drawn from them then surely it is braver, a saner and a truer thing, 
to be a rebel in act and deed against such circumstances as these than 
tamely to accept it as the natural lot of men. 

My lord, I have done. Gentlemen of the jury, I wish to thank you 
for your verdict. I hope you will not take amiss what I said, or think 
that I made any imputation upon your truthfulness or your integrity 
when I spoke and said that this was not a trial by my peers. I main- 
tain that I have a natural right to be tried in that natural jurisdiction, 
Ireland, my own country, and I would put it to you, how would you feel 
in the converse case, or rather how would all men here feel in the converse 
case, if an Englishman had landed here in England and the Crown or the 
Government, for its own purposes, had conveyed him secretly from 
England to Ireland under a false name, committed him to prison under 
a false name, and brought him before a tribunal in Ireland under a statute 
which they knew involved a trial before an Irish jury? How would you 
feel yourselves as Englishmen if that man was to be submitted to trial by 
jury in a land inflamed against him and believing him to be a criminal, 
when his only crime was that he had cared for England more than for 
Ireland ? 

The USHER Oyez. My lords, the King's Justices do strictly charge 
and command all manner of persons to keep silence whilst sentence of 
death is passing upon the prisoner at the bar, upon pain of imprison- 
ment. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Sir Roger David Casement, you have been 
found guilty of treason, the gravest crime known to the Jaw, and upon 
evidence which in our opinion is conclusive of guilt. Your crime was that 
of assisting the King's enemies, that is the Empire of Germany, during 
the terrible war in which we are engaged. The duty now devolves upon 
me of passing sentence upon you, and it is that you be taken hence to a 
lawful prison, and thence to a place of execution, and that you be there 
hanged by the neck until you be dead. And the Sheriffs of the Counties 
of London and Middlesex are, and each of them is, hereby charged with 
the execution of this judgment, and may the Lord have mercy on your 
soul. 

Mr. JUSTICE AVORT Amen I 



205 



II.-THE APPEAL. 



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, LONDON, 
MONDAY, 17TH JULY, 1916, 

BEFORE 

MR. JUSTICE DARLING, 
MR. JUSTICE BRAY, 
MR. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE, 
MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON, and 
MR. JUSTICE ATKIN. 



Counsel for the Grown 

THE ATTORNEY -GENERAL (The Right Hon. Sir Frederick 

Smith, K.C, M.P.), 
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (The Right Hon. Sir George Cave, 

K.C., M.P.), 
MR. A. H. BODKIN, 
MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS, 
MR. G. A. H. BRANSON, 

Instructed by SIR CHARLES W. MATHEWS, K.C.B., 
Director of Public Prosecutions. 

Counsel for the Appellant 

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN (K.C. and Second Serjeant of the Irish 

Bar), 

MR. T. ARTEMUS JONES, 
MR. J. H. MORGAN, 

Instructed by MR. G. GAVAN DUFFY, assisted by MR. 
MICHAEL FRANCIS DOYLE, of the American Bar. 

207 



Sir Roger Casement. 



First Day Monday, 17th July, 1916. 

Mr. SULLIVAN My lords, in this case the prisoner was indicted under 
the statute of Edward III., the offence being stated in the following 
terms: "Sir Roger David Casement is charged with the following 
"offence: High treason by adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere 
" than in the King's realm to wit, in the Empire of Germany contrary 
"to the Treason Act, 1351 (25 Edward III., statute 5, chapter 2)." The 
matter of the appeal, my lords, will involve two questions first, whether 
the matter described in the charge is in truth an offence within the statute 
cited, and a second point will arise as to whether the definition of the 
offence of adhering given by my lord the Chief Justice at the trial at the 
bar was an accurate definition or was defective as an instruction to the 

jury- 

My lords, I propose to consider first of all the state of affairs at 
common law at the time of the passing of the Act of Edward III. If I 
may briefly outline my argument, which I am afraid will occupy a little 
while, as the case is of much importance, I propose to argue that the 
statute of Edward III. was passed for the purpose of limitation of legal 
decisions that were cropping up and extending the doctrine of treason 
at the time of the statute; that it dealt only with treasons that were 
triable at the time at common law. There is authority that the statute 
was to be declaratory of the common law. I propose to show that 
at the time, even under the most extending construction of the common law 
then prevalent, which the statute was passed to prune and not to enlarge, 
under no circumstances could there have been such a crime as that described 
in the indictment here, namely, adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere 
than in the King's realm. I intend, on the construction of the statute, 
to submit that if we had to construe this statute as though it had passed 
yesterday, the first reading of it would convey a perfectly clear view of 
the provisions of the statute to the mind of everybody, and that that 
clear view would be inconsistent with the matter charged in the indictment 
being an offence under the statute. I then propose to show how there 
crept into text-books, because only into text-books the matter originally 
crept, an error with reference to the purview of the statute; I think I 
will be able to show the source of that error and the explanation of it. 
I intend to show from the statutory development of the law of treason, 
running through a, very great number of statutes since the time of Edward 
III., an extraordinary history of expansion and contraction going back 
again and again to the statute of Edward III., as being the law of the land, 
but I intend to submit that on the consideration of those statutes it was 
perfectly clear that the statute of Edward III. itself did not in any degree 
purport to legislate for any territory that was outside the King's realm ; 
that it was extended beyond the realm by special statutes, and that these 
special statutes have in their due course disappeared ; and that going outside 
the statute itself, which is all that is charged in the present instance, and 
208 




The Hon. Mr. Justice Darling-. 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



I think all that remains owing to the repeal of all others, that statute 
itself never did of its own motion extend to anything done outside of the 
realm, and that its extension beyond the realm was statutory extension, 
and that that extension has disappeared with the disappearance of the 
statutes which created it. 

The first matter to be considered is the terms of the statute, because 
the terms of the statute show that it was passed with reference to matters' 
theretofore triable by common law. " Whereas divers opinions have been 
" before this time in what case treason shall be said, and in what not, the 
" King at the request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a 
"declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth; that is to say" then 
we ican pass on " or if a man do levy war against our Lord the King 
" in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving 
"to them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere, and thereof be 
"probably attainted." I have passed three matters which do not arise in 
the present instance. The first important matter is the recital that " divers 
" opinions have been before this time in what case treason shall be said and 
" in what not." I would have your lordships bear in mind that at the 
time of the statute there were at least four different codes of law regulating 
the affairs of subjects within the realm of England, and some of these 
codes of law extended far beyond England. The common law I hope to 
show was purely local, dependent in its essence on venue, and the common 
law could have cognisance of nothing that did not arise within the body 
of some county; there are statutes subsequently passed to enable the 
common law to deal with matters that have not arisen within the bodies 
of counties, but as far as I know there has not yet been cited any authority 
for such a proposition that the common law at the time of Edward III. 
was capable of informing itself of something amounting to a transgression 
which had completely taken place in a territory that was not in a body of 
a county, which was the foundation of the jurisdiction of common law. 

My lords, the opinions of what was treason and what was not, some of 
them we can trace. The opinion that compassing the King's death was 
treason was the most ancient of them. Compassing the death of the King 
went back probably to the" reign of Alfred ; it was certainly an ancient 
offence at the time of the statute. In the year 1285 we get an instance 
of adhering, and a typical instance of adhering. There are seven or eight 
others in the reports, and they are all of the same type, because they are 
all cases in which a person within the King's peace and within the realm 
has been seeking to assist enemies of the King, in some cases within the 
realm, but in most cases outside the realm, by the subject utilising his 
position in the realm to give information and to send intelligence, or, as 
we see from statute later on, perhaps even send material aid to the King's 
enemies outside the realm, but the offender is always within the realm. 

The first case I mention of adhering I am now dealing with within 
the realm was before the statute was passed. I have a typical case as 
to adhering, which is taken from the documents of the city of Oxford ; they 
are not available here so far as I know. I am quoting from the extract 
of them that is set out in the History of English Law, by Professor Holds- 
worth, where he cites the case at some length of Nicholaus de Wautham, 
and his offence, roughly, was as follows: In that case the offence was 
P 209 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



the prefatory averments are almost identical with what remained for 
hundreds of years afterwards that Nioholaus de Wautham conspired with 
Guy de Monteforti and his brother, and Llewellyn of Wales, an enemy of 
our Lord the King, and that he did come to the King's Council or Court 
to privately find out the secrets of the King and all those secrets which 
he could, and when he had ascertained them he conveyed them to the 
King's enemies' ; and it says that he was one of the adherents, the terms 
in which it is alleged in the subsequent indictments for adhering, con- 
tinuing for a couple of hundred years. Strange to say, in the second 
volume of Pollock and Maitland, at page 505, your lordships will find the 
opinion expressed that of the offences mentioned in the statute, probably 
the most recent in the development of the law of treason, was levying war 
against the King in his realm. That provision, my lords, and the limita- 
tion of it is important when one comes to consider the position of offences 
with regard to which the statute was passed. 

My lords, at the time of the statute there were in England among the 
great landowners and nobles a number of persons who were under two 
allegiances, one in England, and, in respect of lands which they exten- 
sively owned in France, another allegiance in France. The limitation of 
levying war, and I submit also the clear limitation of adhering, arose from 
the fact that, being feudal subjects of the King of France in respect of 
French lands and of the King of England in respect of English lands, the 
barons themselves would be anxious to limit the decision of treason in 
such a way as that their English lands should not be forfeited in respect 
of service and homage rendered in respect of their possessions outside the 
realm rendered to the King's enemies. At page 460 of the first volume 
of Pollock and Maitland there is this passage, " The territory within which, 
" according to later law, subjects would be born to the King of England 
' was large; under Henry II. it became vast. It comprehended Ireland; 
' at times (to say the least) it comprehended Scotland ; it stretched to 
1 the Pyrenees. Then, again, the law even of Bracton's day acknowledged 
' that a man might be a subject of the French King and hold land in 
' France, and yet be a subject of the English King and hold land in 
' England. It was prepared to meet the case of a war between the 
' two Kings ; the amphibious baron might fight in person for his liege 
' lord, but he must also siend his due consignment of knights to the 
' opposite army. In generation after generation a Robert Bruce holds 
" lands on both sides of the Scotch border; no one cares to remember on 
" which side he was born." The reference to Bracton is folio 427B. It 
was the Parliament that was seeking to have a definition of treason, which, 
of course, at that time was very largely a matter affecting title to property, 
and developed, indeed, in the early days as part of the law of real property. 
The distinction between treason and felony was, as we all know, who 
should get the lands of the barons confiscated, whether the King, who, of 
course, was anxious to extend everything to being treason, whether it 
should be others who would be anxious to limit the cases of treason within 
the narrower compass. This furnishes an instance of why there should 
be special mention both in the case of adhering to the King's enemies and 
of levying war, and a limitation that it should be within the realm, other- 
wise bound as the owner of land in France would be bound under pain of 
210 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



forfeiture of his lands in France, he being in most oases a legislator in 
England, bound as he would be to furnish actual military service to the 
King of France, under whom he held his French lands as a condition to 
retain them, he would forfeit his English lands if that amounted to treason 
with reference to his allegiance to the English King. I submit that it 
is a very plain reason why the Parliament would be most anxious to see 
that the persons who very largely constituted the Parliament should be put 
in a position of having to elect, with two feudal claims upon them, which 
of their territories they should forfeit in case their two feudal lords 
disagreed and went to war. At all event there is no doubt whatever, 
I submit, that the limitation of levying war was confined to within the 
realm. The provisions of the statute have been re-enaoted on subsequent 
dates, and I will point out to your lordships on one occasion, and on one 
occasion only, was the levying of war extended to without the realm, and 
that was a statute of Charles II., and for a brief period. One of the 
matters that will have to be considered here if levying war waei to be treason 
only when committed within the realm, is why should mere adherence to 
another person without the levying of war elsewhere have been constituted 
treason, when the actual taking up of arms beside him would not have been 
treason within the appropriate limit of the statute? 

The quotation from the Oxford City documents will be found in Pollock 
and Maitland, volume ii., page 507, at the bottom. That is the case of 
adhering I was reciting. Now, at common law, both before and after 
the statute, trial had to proceed according to a process which was so 
rigidly settled that process was everything, and the essence of common 
law, the foundation of common law was venue. It is most important 
in the construction of the statute to note that procedure is not dealt with, 
because I will point out to you when it comes subsequently to be extended, 
as the statute was periodically extended to operate outside the confines of 
the realm, procedure was always looked upon in the statute, and hundreds 
of years afterwards when venue was loosening in civil actions, and was* 
indeed becoming a matter that might be alleged falsely and not contro- 
verted, nevertheless you find that in criminal matters the question of venue 
is attended to whenever there is statutory enlargement of offence and 
bringing them outside the confines of the realm or outside the body of 
counties. There being no provision in the statute, the question at once 
arises, if a, statute is to operate outside the kingdom how is the statute 
to be put into operation? Venues, we know, went back certainly to the 
Constitutions of Clarendon, which are in 1164, where we get the essence 
of venue, and the essence of the first step in process against a person 
against whom a crime is subsequently to be alleged. We find all through 
that twelve men from the neighbourhood of the occurrence became the 
standard of opinion as to whether a man isi even to be put to trial or not, 
and as late as 35 Henry VIII., chapter 6, apparently six men should 
come actually from the very county in which the offence had taken place. 
Your lordships will find in Viner, volume xxi., page 3, under " Trial," 
at the first line of the page, " If an act be to be done all beyond sea, it 
" cannot be tried in England ; but where part is to be done in England and 
" part beyond sea it may be tried in England." In the same volume, 
at page 130, under " Trial," you find a suggestion of trying crimes com- 

211 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

mitted in two counties in either county. That, as a matter of fact, 
contrasts with the opinion of Stephen, that, until there was a statute of 
Edward, crimes that were not committed in either county could be tried 
in neither. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The opinion of Sir Fitzjames Stephen? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Stephen's Commentaries. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What did he say? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That until the statute was passed, at common law a 
man being shot in one county and traversing the boundary and dying in 
another, the murder not being completed in either, it was possible at 
common law the murderer should escape trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It was impossible. Does he indicate what did 
become of him? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I should say he did it again. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Did he always commit murder on the edge of 
the county? 

Mr. SULLIVAN As a matter of fact, Viner says he may be tried in 
either county. That is what I referred to Viner for at page 130. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Stephen said he thinks he could be tried in 
neither. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Till the statute of Edward I. was passed, a very early 
statute. At all events, as we know, there have been statutes passed, a 
long series going back to Edward I., dealing with crimes committed on 
the borders of counties or in more than one county. Your lordship knows 
with regard to venue there are a large number of venue statutes with 
regard to crimes that are partially committed in one place and partially 
in another. They are very ancient statutes, and they are consistent with 
the fact that venue was originally such a rigid doctrine. Viner, of course, 
is writing after the statute had cured that, and he may be expressing the 
opinion of the statute. At all events, they were triable in either county 
eventually, but there certainly was a statute passed to deal with it at a 
very early period, and, at all events, undoubtedly until the passing of the 
statute there was difficulty in laying a venue, and venue was the very 
essence of trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING How do you know that that statute did not 
declare the common law, the statute which made the crime triable in 
either county? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It may have done so; I cannot say that I know it 
did not; I do not seek to make any such proposition, but at the same 
time it is exceedingly difficult when one studies the relation of venue to 
jurisdiction under the old common law to see how he could be indicted in 
either county, because, my lord, the jurors in one county had no means 
of informing themselves of the circumstances under which the blow was 
given, and the jurors in the other county had no means of informing them- 
selves of what had been the ultimate consequence of the blow. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Are you speaking of the time before there were 
witnesses, when the jurors were the witnesses? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Or of a time when jurors were jurors, and 
witnesses could be summoned before them? 
212 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. SULLIVAN I will take the time when the jurors were the persons 
who first presented and subsequently tried on their own presentment ; they 
were the witnesses and the proof. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Once you arrive at the time when the juror was 
a juror and witnesses were summoned, do you mean there was no means 
even in early days of getting witnesses from Worcestershire, say, to come 
before a jury of Herefordshire? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, I think that would be the cure. Once you get 
to the development of the witness of something that had happened in the 
county, once the law developed into the practice of outside witnesses 
apart from the neighbours, once you ha.ve jurisdiction to inquire into 
something having happened that was against the peace, that was within 
the county, then there came the inquisition, and they might inform them- 
selvesi of what had been the ultimate result. The essential thing for 
inquiry in either county must still be that something had happened in 
the county which gave the juror a right to inquire. You are still within 
venue ; whether, having your venue, your inquiry may go into facts outside 
the venue is a different matter. I am only dwelling on this so as to show 
that when you get outside the body of the county, at the time of 
Edward I., I submit it was impossible that any county could inform itself 
of a matter which had happened completely outside the body of any part 
of His Majesty's realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Perhaps you have not arrived at it, but, at all 
events, you have not mentioned that people were tried by Commissioners. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am coming to them. The Commissioners were 
merely a development. That will be a part of my argument upon which 
I shall rely most strongly, that the statutes proceeded to provide for 
offences outside the realm, and with the same provisions making offences 
outside the realm, the statutes, conscious of the incompetence of common 
law to deal with them, provided statutory tribunals to deal with them; 
the same statute which extended treason outside the realm also provided 
for ite trial within. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do you mean the statute of Henry VII I.? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The 26 Henry VIII., not 35 Henry VIII. 35 Henry 
VIII. was passed to explain doubts that had arisen on the previous statute 
of 26 Henry VIII. At page 178, volume xxi., of Viner, under " Trial " 
" If a man be stricken upon the high sea, and dies of the same stroke 
"upon the land, this cannot be inquired of by the common law, because 
" no venue can come from the place where the stroke was given (though 
" it were within the sea pertaining to the realm of England, and within 
" the ligeanoe of the King), because it is not within any of the counties 
" of the realm; neither can the admiral hear and determine this murder, 
" because though the stroke was within his jurisdiction, yet the death was 
' ' infra corpus comitatus, whereof he cannot inquire ; neither is it within 
"the statute of 26 Henry VIII., because the murder was not committed 
" on the sea. But by the Act of 13 Richard II. the constable and 
" marshal may hear and determine the same." That emphasises what 
I was saying with regard to the statute referring to offences at common 
law only, because as we know both the constable and marshal and the 

213 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 
admiral had jurisdiction outside the realm of England altogether in other 



Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Serjeant Sullivan, in the ease you put, suppose 
neither the assizes nor the admiral could investigate this case, what about 
the coroner; ought not he to inquire where the man died and how he came 
by his death? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The coroner could inquire, no doubt, into how the 
man died, but, the coroner being also shackled by his jurisdiction, I 
submit it is perfectly clear that he could not hold investigation as to cir- 
cumstances that arose outside the body of the county, any more than the 
common law could. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE What is the authority for that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Viner " If a man be stricken upon the high sea, and 
" dies of the same stroke upon the land, this cannot be inquired of by 
" the common law, because no venue can come from the place where the 
' ' stroke was given (though it were within the sea pertaining to the realm 
" of England and within the ligeance of the King)." That was cured by 
the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE, DARLING Yes, but a dying declaration made by a man 
was always evidence. Suppose a man was wounded in Herefordshire and 
fled into Worcestershire and fell dead, but before dying stated that 
So-and-So and So-and-So in Herefordshire struck him the blow of which 
he died, could not good evidence be given before .the coroner in Worcester- 
shire? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit not. The coroner of Worcestershire did not 
inquire into what had been done in the adjoining county. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING He must inquire of the death on view of the 
body; if it was found that the man before he died made a deposition 
which said So-and-So and So-and-So half a mile away at the other end 
of the village in the other county struck him the blow, do you say that 
that evidence could not have been given? 

Mr. SULLIVAN There certainly was a period in which it could not be. 
The evidence must be given just as anything might take place, but the 
Coroner's Court could express no opinion upon whether the evidence with, 
regard to an act done outside his jurisdiction was true or false. But 
there is the case, if the coroner could not inquire, the common law could 
not inquire. Of course, the difficulty is in transporting one's mind to a 
state of legal development in which that might be so, because hundreds of 
years ago these anomalies were redressed all by statute ; when it came to 
crimes they were redressed by statutes ; they were redressed in the law 
between man and man in contracts to commence with, at a very much 
earlier period, or rather in a very different way by the allegation of false 
venue, but the very allegation of false venue of contracts which were partly 
to be performed within the realm is an illustration of how rigid was the 
mile of venue and the limitation of venue upon a matter which had not 
been redressed by any such device and in which the venue had to be true, 
down to the end, except when it was altered by statute. You have to 
get a true venue, for venue was of the very essence of criminal jurisdiction. 

Then at page 180 " If two of the King's subjects go over into a 
" foreign realm, and fight there, and the one kills the other, this murder 
214 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



' being done out of the realm cannot be for want of trial heard and deter- 
' mined by the common law, but it may b heard and determined before 
'the constable and marshal." Then volume xiv., at page 376, "Every 
' indictment at common law must expressly show some place wherein the 
' offence was committed, which must appear to have been within the 
' jurisdiction of the Court in which the indictment was taken, and must 
' be alleged without any repugnancy ; for if one and the same offence be 
' alleged at two different places, or at B aforesaid, where B was not 
' before mentioned ; or if the stroke be alleged at A and the death at B, 
' and the indictment conclude that the defendant sic felonice murdravit 
' the deceased at A, the indictment is void ; so is it also if it lay not both 
' at a place of the stroke and death, or if any place so alleged be not such 
' from whence a venue may come." 

With regard to venue there is a very interesting case, I believe not 
heretofore printed, which my colleague, Professor Morgan, has found in 
the Coram Rege Roll, Easter, 2 Henry IV., Membrane 18; that will be 
in the year 1401. The Roll is in the Record Office, and your lordships 
can inspect it. It is a very peculiar case. It is the case of one John 
Kynaston, who was charged with being an accessory to the treason of 
compassing in Wales and with certain felonies in Shropshire committed. 

The record begins by reciting that Owen Glyndwr and other Welsh- 
men had imagined, conspired, and intended the death and deposition of 
the King and of the Prince of Wales, and John Kynaston was indicted for 
consenting to the aforesaid treasons this is not a literal translation, it 
is the pith of the document he was charged with having traitorously 
sent his son in arms to assist Owen Glyndwr at Oswestry, and with having 
received and comforted two Welshmen, traitors, and with having feloniously 
stolen cattle. He was indicted in Shropshire ; the indictment was returned 
into the Court of King's Bench at Westminster. It was there given in 
evidence that Oswestry and other places laid in the indictment of treason 
were in Wales and outside Shropshire, and the laws of the realm that is, 
the place of the treason, the assemblage under Owen Glyndwr. The 
Attorney-General appeared, and upon this contended that the King's 
justices in Shropshire could not inquire into treasons in Wales, nor were 
they triable by the law of England. The position of the Attorney -General 
was, as we all know, not the same as the position which the Attorney- 
General occupies in more recent years; I rather fancy the chief Crown 
representative was the King's Serjeant at the time. As I have said, 
the Attorney-General appeared, and upon this contended that the King's 
justices in Shropshire could not inquire into treasons in Wales, nor were 
they triable by the laws of England. This was admitted, and the jury 
were required to try the issue of only those felonies that were committed 
in Shropshire; the jurors were summoned from Shropshire to the Court 
of King's Bench. The plea to the jurisdiction appears to have been 
admitted, because the jurors were asked to try and inquire into the felonies 
committed in Shropshire only. Accordingly, my lords, he is tried for 
that; he is not tried for the treason, and, my lords, as a matter of fact, 
the jury acquitted him of the charge against him. I have here a com- 
plete copy of the roll if your lordships would like to see it. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It does not say that he could not be tried for 

215 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

treason outside England. It may say he could not be tried for it except 
he was tried in Wales, but it does not say he could not be tried for treason. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Wales is there alleged in the plea to have been out- 
side. They could not inquire into treason in Wales, nor were they triable 
by the law of England. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It does not say it was not treason within the 
realm ; it was* within the realm, of course. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think not. I think when your lordship looks at 
the record the argument is that Wales is not within the realm of England ; 
a very strange state of affairs prevails. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Who was King over Wales at that time? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Owen Glyndwr claimed to be. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING But Henry IV. did not recognise it, else why 
did he fight him? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I admit their minds were not ad idem on the subject, 
but the position of Wales, my lord, was a very peculiar one ; the position 
of Wales was very similar to that of the position of the French provinces. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Would you hand up the record you have there? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord, it is in Latin. Wales was part of the 
realm, but it was in this most anomalous position, it was not in the body 
of any county. It is all the stronger for me if it was part of the realm. 
It was not in the body of any county, and the King's writ did not run 
in Wales until a very much later period of history, so much later that 
there is a case in Burrows' Reports which I cannot give the reference to 
at the present time, another case of the venue statutes that applied both 
to England and Ireland, in which a venue was removed from Carlow to a 
Midland county in England, as being the nearest county in which the 
King's writ did run. There is actually a statute to which I will refer 
your lordships, if I may be permitted to deal with the statutes in a different 
branch of the argument. You find, with regard to this matter, that Owen 
Glyndwr J s case is one where the statute provided for the trial of the 
offence in Wales and other places where the King's writ did not run. 
Now, that defect is cured by statute after the case ; but there is the case 
that until provision was made by the statute take Wales as being within 
the realm, which is all the stronger in my view I submit, for want of the 
body of a county within the realm an offence is untriable, and it takes a 
statute to cure it; the date is subsequent to the Treason Act that we 
have to construe in the present instance. Now, I propose to go shortly 
through the statutory development. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do you mean to say that is an authority for 
this proposition, that at the time of Henry IV. a man might commit 
treason within the realm and could not be tried anywhere within the 
realm for it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think that it shows that Wales was considered to be 
without the realm. I am taking your lordship's view that Wales was 
within the realm, and I am saying it is an authority that an offence 
committed in Wales was not triable in an English county. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Were not there Courts in Wales that 
could try at that time? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think not. I may be a little confused in my dates, 
216 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



but just at the instant it occurs to me that that was at a time when the 
King's writ was not running in Wales. Will your lordships permit me to 
look it up afterwards? I cannot give the exact date now. There was 
a statutory provision with regard to the King's writ not running. 

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL This matter of Kynaston, it was said, was 
not reported, but I find there is a report of it given, a short report, on 
page 155 of the first volume of Hale's Pleas of the Crown, the 1800 
edition. 

Mr. SULLIVAN What Hale says is, "As touching treason committed 
in Wales before the statute of 26 Henry VIII., chapter 6, no treason, 
murder, or felony committed in Wales was inquirable or triable before 
Commissioners of oyer and terminer, or in the King's Bench in England, 
but before justices or Commissioners assigned by the King in those 
counties of Wales where the fact was committed." That is Henry IV. 
Then he quotes the Kynaston case. Then he says that by the statute 
26 Henry VIII., chapter 6, that was cured. The proposition in Hale 
suggests that it requires statutory provision, and, indeed, there is a statute 
dealing with trials of matters in Wales and other places where the King's 
writ runneth not. Subsequently to the statute of Edward III. there was 
a great number of statutes passed regulating the law of treason, and a 
great number of those statutes extend the law of treason outside the realm. 
Where they did so you find them providing for its trial. The first statute 
is 2 Henry V., chapter 6; that would be in 14:14:. The matters dealt 
with in the statute were matters chiefly arising on sea, and the matters 
made treason were principally violation of safe conducts granted by the 
Crown, breaches of truce in time of truce. The important matter is that 
they were merely offences committed outside the bodies of counties, there 
committed, and so committed abroad. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Serjeant Sullivan, have you noticed this in 
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, at page 158, after discussing this very case 
of Kynaston, " But certainly Wales is within the kingdom of England, 
" and therefore not within the statute of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, for 
" trial of foreign treasons "? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That was certainly true at the time that Hale wrote 
it. Henry VIII. incorporated Wales 1 just as he incorporated Ireland. It 
was incorporated in the reign of Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING On page 155 or 156, if you look at the inset 
in the margin, he says this in dealing with this case that you have been 
citing, " As touching treason committed in Wales before the statute of 
:t 26 Henry VIII., chapter 6, no treason, murder, or felony committed in 
' Wales was inquirable or triable before Commissioners of oyer and 
" terminer, or in the King's Bench of England, but before justices or 
" Commissioners assigned by the King in those counties of Wales where 
" the fact was committed." 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is after 2 Henry IV. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Then he cites the Act of Henry IV. That is 
in the John Kynaston case. There yooi have a distinct statement that it was 
treason against the King of England to levy war against him in Wales; 
that he could be tried ; he could not be tried at the assizes of Shropshire, 
he could not be tried at the King's Bench in London, but he could be tried 

217 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 

by a special Commission issued by the King of England to go and try him 
in Wales. 

Mr. SULLIVAN By statute ; that is the very argument that I am going 
to address to your lordship. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Hale does not say it is by statute that the 
Commissioners act, except that they try him under the statute of Edward 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, my lord, when you come to the Commissioners I 
think you find the Commissioners are purely statutory. 

Mr. JUSTICB DARLING " Before justices or Commissioners assigned by 
" the King in those counties of Wales where the fact was committed." 

Mr. SULLIVAN Your lordship will find that the provision of assigning 
both Commissioners and venues is statutory, and I am going to open a 
series of statutes to your lordship. 

Mr. JUSTICB BRAY Let it be so; supposing it is so, that merely 
regulates the mode and the place of trial. It does not say it is not treason ; 
the Act that you have referred to does not make it treason. If any Act 
makes it treason it is the Act of Edward III. 

Mr. SULLIVAN What I submit is this, that nothing is treason unless 
it can be so adjudicated treason. When you are dealing with the Courts 
of law it is not a matter of morals, but of law. Unless there is some 
Court that can say whether a treasonable act has been committed or not, 
in the inquiry into the matter, it cannot be treason to do an act which 
you can do without being punishable for it or triable for it in a Court 
of law. There cannot be what in law amounts to a crime of which no 
Court can inform itself. You must not be presumed to have committed 
a crime until you have been lawfully condemned, and if there exists no 
machinery, not only for condemnation, but for inquiry, I submit that is 
overwhelming proof that the act cannot be a crime when its legal quality 
oannot be inquired into. 

Mr. JUSTICB DARLING How can you say there was no machinery if, 
although it could not be tried at the ordinary Commission of Assize nor in 
the King's Bench, it was within the King's legal power to issue a Com- 
mission to people to try the person for the particular treason? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think, my lord, that I will show your lordship where 
the Commission came from that went into Wales, but, at all evente, we 
have not yet come to a case; until after 26 Henry VIII. I think we shall 
not come to a case. I submit that the common law Commission would be 
a Commission of oyer and terminer. When you find that they are not 
triable at the common law Commission, not triable by the Court of Queen's 
Bench, and are triable by a different body, I think you will find that that 
body is a statutory body appointed ad hoc, and I think I will find the 
statute. I think that Hale must have been speaking of the statute 
passed in 32 Henry VIII., chapter 4, where there are special provisions 
made for the trial of treasons in Wales, where the King's writ runneth not. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Hale was speaking of something which happened 
before Henry VIII. Where is the statutory authority for trying people, 
as you say, by Commission ; where do you find that ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Hale admits that the Court of common law was in- 
capable of trying it. 
218 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. JUSTICE BRAT But at the same time lie says the King may appoint 
Commissioners or judges to try it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Unless the King had some peculiar power in Wales 
he could only appoint special Commissioners to try criminal cases under 
special statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Why do you say that? 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Therefore it was that I asked to see what the 
statute was and when. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Until 32 Henry VIII. I find no statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE He could always do it at common law. 
It has always been so understood. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The common law Courts were the Courts sent out from 
the King's Bench into the country or the King's Bench itself. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Those were the ordinary Courts, but 
just the same power that enabled those Commissions to be issued could 
issue a special Commission to try in a particular place a particular case. 

The ATTORNET-GENERAL Hale has a reference to that at page 154. 
In dealing with offences committed on the high seas before that statute, 
that is 28 Henry VIII., chapter 15, they might be tried by special Com- 
mission under the common law, and according to the course of the common 
law. 

Mr. SULLTVAN I am going to point out that Hale is wrong. The 
passages in Hale treat this matter as if the law was against me, but I am 
going to deal with Hale. Hale follows Coke, and I am going to put it 
that the authorities cited by both Coke and Hale for the propositions they 
advance do not support the propositions for which they are cited. 

My lords, I was pointing out that owing to the absence of venue (and 

1 have cited the authorities) the common law could not try cases that 
arose outside the realm, or even outside the bodies of counties. I find 
that I omitted one passage from volume xxi. of Viner, page 180, with 
regard to treasons. " Treasons committed out of the realm cannot be 
" tried by the Courts at common law." At the time these text-writers 
were writing they had a little catalogue of statutes passed to remedy 
the defect of the common law. I was calling attention to the statute 

2 Henry V., chapter 6, which I will only refer to shortly. That created 
offences of treason by acts done outside of the realm, and as it did so it 

Cvided a tribunal to try them, and it provided that they should be tried 
9 a conservator and two men learned in the law, and they were to be 
tried according to the practice prevailing in trials before the admirals of 
the Kings of England. That was not common law, as your lordships know. 
So there, which is the first case I find after the statute of Edward III., 
where the statute clearly was creating offences in respect of acts com- 
mitted entirely outside of the King's dominions, a statutory Court with 
statutory jurisdiction not dependent upon venue at all is appointed to try 
them according to a code of law which did not require venue for its juris- 
diction. 26 Henry VIII., chapter 13, is, I submit, the foundation 
of all that has been said in Hale and Coke with regard both to procedure 
and to treason out of the realm. 

That statute your lordships will find if you have before you the 
Collection of Treason Statutes, ordered by Parliament to be printed in 

219 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

1709, at page 7 " It shall be high treason to wish or desire by words 
" or writing, or to imagine, invent, or attempt any bodily harm to be 
"done to the King, the Queen, or their heirs apparent." The 1 Henry 
IV. restored the statute of Edward III., the reign of Richard II. having 
gone completely outside the statute both in interpretation or without inter- 
pretation, and by statutory offences, but they were all within the realm, 
and that is why I am not citing them on this branch of my argument. 
Here you have a repetition of treasonable offences. There is compassing 
and publishing of the King that he is a heretic, " detaining from the King 
" his castles or holds or his ships or munition of war. And to the intent 
" that all treasons should be the more dread, hated, and detested to be 
" done by any person or persons . . . be it therefore enacted that 
" no offenders in any kinds of high treasons whatsoever they may be, their 
" aiders, consentors, councillors, nor abettors, shall be admitted to have 
" the benefit or privilege of any manner of sanctuary . . . and that 
" if any of the King's subjects, denizens, or other do commit or practice 
" out of the limits of this realm in any outward parts any such offences, 
" which by this Act are made or heretofore have been made treason, that 
"then such treasons whatsoever they may be or wheresoever they shall 
" happen to be done or committed shall be inquired of and presented by the 
" oaths of twelve good and lawful men upon good and probable evidence 
" and witness, in such shire and county of this realm and before such. 
" persons as it shall please the King's Highness to appoint by Commission 
" under his great seal, in like manner and form as treasons committed 
" within this realm have been used to be inquired of and presented ; and 
" that upon every indictment and presentment found and made of any 
" such treasons and certified into the King's Bench, like process and other 
' ' circumstance sihall be there had and made against the offender, as if the 
" same treasons so presented had been lawfully found to be done and 
" committed within the limits of this realm. And that all process of out- 
" la wry hereafter to be made," and so on. I submit that that is the 
foundation of the law of foreign treasons 1 that are afterwards, to be found in 
the books, that statute and another statute which I will come to later. 
There are two important matters to be noticed there " That if any of 
" the King's subjects, denizens, or other do commit or practice out of the 
" limits of this realm in any outward parts " 

Mr. JUSTICE, DARLING Where are you reading from now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am reading from the Parliamentary Collection of 
Statutes. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have it in my note as chapter 13, section 3. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " That if any of the King's 1 subjects, denizens, or 
" other do commit or practice out of the limits of this realm in any outward 
" parts, any such offences which by this Act are made or heretofore have 
" been made treason, that then such treasons whatsoever they may be or 
" wheresoever they shall happen so to be done or committed shall be 
1 ' inquired of and presented by the oaths of twelve good and lawful men 
"upon good and probable evidence and witness, in such shire and county 
" of this realm and before such persons as it shall please the King's 
" Highness to appoint by Commission under his great seal, in like manner 
" and form as treasons committed within this realm," and then there is 
220 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



process of procedure and the outlawry section which. I need not pursue. 
There you have, as you had in 1414^ legislation clearly applying beyond 
the limits of the realm, and as soon as you find that state of affairs you 
find a statutory tribunal with jurisdiction to inquire into it. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do you say that there was no tribunal to inquire 
into it before this? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Not with regard to offences committed within the 
territory of any foreign prince. There were two tribunals that could 
inquire into it. I shall have to develop that later on. The admiral 
could try anything that was committed on the high seas- or below the 
bridges of the great rivers-. He had a civil law jurisdiction, and he could 
always try treason, although being civil law treason the result was not the 
same a at common law. Then also the constable and marshal could try 
treasons committed outside the realm, and he could try them within the 
realm as long as the appeal of treason remained and wager of battle. As 
long as that remained there was jurisdiction in the constable and m^jfihal 
to try appeals of treasons of persons within the realm in respect of treaSwis 
committed outside the realm. But, when I come to read the next statute, 
even now the common law does not know it, notwithstanding the statute 
of 26 Henry VIII., and it requires another statute to give jurisdiction 
to the common law Court to inquire into treasons committed outside the 
realm. 

The next statute in order of date deals with the matter I was speaking 
of with regard to the admiral, but, as in The King v. Lynch, there appears 
to have been considerable confusion as to the scope of this statute, I will 
draw your lordships 5 attention to it, the Act 28 Henry VIII., chapter 15. 
The statute recites that, " Where traitors, pirates, thieves, robbers, and 
" so forth, many times escaped unpunished because the trial of their 
tc offences hath heretofore been ordered, judged, and determined before 
{< the admiral or his lieutenant or commissary after the course of the 
" civil laws " I told your lordships that it is established by clear authority 
that the admiral had jurisdiction to inquire into anything that happened 
on a ship below the bridges and on the high seas all over the world " the 
" nature whereof is that whatever any judgment of death can be given 
"against the offenders, either they must plainly confess their offences 
" (which they will never do without torture or pains), or else their offences 
" be so plainly and directly proved by witness indifferent, such as saw 
" their offences committed (which cannot be gotten but by chance at few 
" times), because such offenders commit their offences upon the sea, and 
" at many times murder and kill such persons being in the ship or boat 
" where they commit their offence, which should witness against them in 
" that behalf," and then, " For reformation whereof be it enacted by the 
" authority of this present Parliament that all treasons, felonies, robbers, 
" murders, and confederacies hereafter to be committed in or upon the sea 
"or in any other haven, river, creek, or place where the admiral or 
" admirals have or pretend to have power, authority, or jurisdiction, shall 
" be inquired, tried, heard, determined, and judged in such shires and 
{t places in the realm as shall be limited by the King's Commission or 
" Commissions to be directed for the same in like form and condition as 
" if any such offence or offences had been committed or done in or upon 

221 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

the land; and such Commission shall bo had. under the King's great 
seal directed to the admiral or admirals, or to his or their lieutenant 
deputy and deputies, and to three or four such other substantial person 
as shall be named or appointed by the Lord Chancellor of England for 
the time being from time to time and as oft a need shall require 
to hea.r and determine such offences after the common course of the laws 
of thisi land used for treasons, felonies, robbers, murders, and con- 
federacies of the same done and committed upon the land within the 
realm." That statute is most important to bear in mind for two 
reasons. Your lordships again see a Commission was issuable under it 
to try, among other things, treasons and treasons committed within the 
realm of England, one of them a reported case cited by the late Lord 
Chief Justice as being a conclusive authority in The King v. Lynch, The 
King v. Vaughan, which I shall have to deal with afterwards. 

The statutory Commission supersedes the admiral in his theretofore 
unlimited jurisdiction in trying everything that happened on ships on the 
high seas or in estuaries below the great bridges. The Commission still 
goes to the admiral, but he has associated with him three or four sub- 
stantial persons, who, as your lordships know, are the judges who are, in 
fact, common law judges, and they are to proceed according to the course 
of the laws of the land used for these offences when the same were done 
and committed upon the land, and they may be tried in any shire or 
county appointed by the Commission. If the King had power to appoint 
by Commission overriding the law of venue that the offence should be 
tried in any county, I submit you would not have had that provision there, 
still less would you have had the provisions 1 , both in the year 141 4, 26 
Henry VIII., and what I am coming to next, 35 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Does that do more than change the procedure 
before the admiral for cases which the admiral by virtue of his jurisdiction 
had hitherto tried and would continue to try? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The admiral no longer proceeds to try them as 
admiral. He now tries them as president of a Commission, consisting of 
himself and three or four substantial persons nominated by the Lord 
Chancellor a new Court. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Tee, but it was to try the cases which the 
admiral used to try. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Then it was found that the admiral tried 
them 

Mr. SULLIVAN He tried them by civil law. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Yes, and then it was decided to associate with 
him people who knew the common law, and they altogether tried these 
cases by a different procedure. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There being a new Court. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING There was a jury provided. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, I am coming to that. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The admiral had not been accustomed to sum 
up, so they put a couple of judges with him to help him, but it only goes 
to procedure. 
222 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. SULLIVAN I am labouring the point that it goes to procedure; 
it supplies a statutory venue which without it did not exist. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING You mean, if you are going to say there must 
be a jury to try the case, you leave the admiral, but you put with him a 
jury and a couple of common lawyers, and because you are going to have 
a jury you must say where the trial is to take place, because you have 
to summon them. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Certainly. That is part of my argument. Once 
you get a- trial according to common law, even where you have a tribunal, 
which is not a common law tribunal, but a statutory tribunal, 
it must proceed on the lines of the common law, and you must have a venue, 
and the statute provides that venue. That is why I submit this is a 
very strong authority, that without venue, even at that date, the common 
law in crimes, had no jurisdiction, and accordingly, where you are to 
proceed according to common law, you must have a statutory venue when 
the true venue wasi one from which you could not summon the jury. I 
am labouring the point of process and procedure even at such a late date 
as this as showing that without such provision the common law could not 
go on, and could not try anything that was alleged to be an offence. That 
is why I am, perhaps, at some length insisting on the process and pro- 
cedure sections of that statute as throwing light upon the inability of the 
common law to get on without a venue. I have called your lordships' 
attention to the provisions of 26 Henry VIII. That made acts com- 
mitted outside the realm treason which would have been treason if they 
had been committed within the realm. It also provided for the trial of 
them, . and I have read the section dealing with the trial of them. 
Apparently they were again in difficulty as to procedure under the statute 
of 26 Henry VIII., and after nine years they had to pass a statute giving 
the true common law jurisdiction. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Pardon my interrupting you for a moment. Is 
what you have stated as the effect of 26 Henry VIII., chapter 13, this, 
that an act which if done within the realm is treason, was declared to be 
treason if done outside the realm? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN That is to say, it was not merely a law dealing 
with procedure, but it also altered the description of treason. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. It extended the law of treason, as I submit, for 
the first time that you can trace, outside the limits of the realm. Having 
done that, they were faced with the question of how they were to proceed 
in cases that came within that part of the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN You will have to consider later on, if that is the 
meaning of 26 Henry VIII. chapter 13, how it bears upon the statute of 
Edward III. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Because if it made that treason outside the realm 
which Was treason within the realm, then if the Act of Edward III. only 
made adhering within the realm treason, this made treason adhering 
outside the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is not absent from my mind. I have not over- 
looked it, and I will deal with it. What I am pointing out at the moment 

223 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

is that the statute of 26 Henry VIII., which I submit for the first time, 
extended this law to acts done completely outside the realm in the territory 
of another prince, was conscious of the fact that it could not stop there, 
and had to provide for this new departure by the constitution of a new 
tribunal with a statutory venue, to be appointed by the King's Commission ; 
and I use that as an argument that the common law, even at that date, 
could not have proceeded, and they had to provide a statutory tribunal to 
deal with what had become clearly an offence, but an offence which re- 
quired a statutory tribunal to try it, the common law being powerless for 
want of a venue. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAY Is this right, that the statute provided, first of all, 
that certain acts which were not treason should be treasons? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That, I submit, is the construction of the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT It did not deal with the treason of adhering to 
the King's enemies in that part of the statute at all, and then by a later 
section it dealt with the mode of trial to those treasons and all other 
treasons. Is not that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. Will your lordship turn to the section? 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT " Be it enacted that if any of the King's subjects, 
" denizens, or other do commit or practice out of the limits of this realm 
" in any outward parts, any such offences which by this Act are made 
" or heretofore have been made treason " 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is omnibus. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT " That then such treasons, whatsoever they be or 
" wheresoever they shall happen so to be done or committed, shall be 
" inquired " into by a jury. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, it created foreign treasons, and then inasmuch 
as you could not proceed, the procedure shall be according to the custom 
of the law in the realm, and the law of the realm could not inform itself 
without a venue, and then it provides a statutory tribunal with a statutory 
venue for the purposes of summoning the jurors and proceeding according 
to common law. By 35 Henry VIII. doubts seems to have arisen a to 
whether that procedure section was sufficient. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT This statute did assume that before the Act 26 
Henry VIII. there were treasons committed out of the limits of the realm 
which might be tried. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit not. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT " Do commit or practice out of the limits of this 
" realm in any outward parts any such offences which by this Act are 
"made or heretofore have been made treason. " Therefore it clearly 
implied that there were treasons committed out of the realm which were 
offences before the Act, and then it made them triable in a certain way. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit the construction of the statute is somewhat 
different. I submit what it enacts is this. It uses the word " offences " 
when it clearly shows that the offences, as they call them, namely, the acts, 
which your lordship sees are of a peculiar character, for instance, pub- 
lishing of the King that he is heretic, and matters of that kind that 
these acts, or, as they call them, offences, if done out of the realm, are 
to have some quality of crime, as if they were done within the realm ; 
and, again, the word " offences " being applied simply means acts which 
224 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



have been declared within the realm to be offences, if now done outside 
the realm, shall be crimes, although done outside the realm. 

The importance of that construction, if it is the right construction, 
is that you would then need to have some tribunal to take some cognisance* 
of this extension of crime, namely, an extension to the inquiry into the 
criminal nature of the acts wholly committed outside of the realm, which, 

I submit, you find no trace of prior to 26 Henry VIII. ; and in order 
that some one may inquire into them the twelve men from the vicinity 
cannot inquire into them, because ex hypothesi the matter arises where 
there are no twelve men corresponding to the statute to inquire and 
accordingly the statute itself constitutes a new tribunal, constitutes a 
venue that could not have existed at common law, and then provides 
procedure whereby in the new tribunal a trial may be had of the new 
offences. If they were not new offences and the argument is unsound, 
there would have been no necessity for setting up this peculiar and awkward 
tribunal. I submit there is no such thing known to the law as a crime 
which the law is incapable of pronouncing a crime after procedure. No 
man is a criminal who has not been condemned according to the course 
of law. 

In 35 Henry VIII., the Act of 26 Henry VIII. had obviously created 
difficulty in procedure even at that date. " Forasmuch a$ some doubts 
" and questions have been moved that certain kinds of treasons, mis- 
" prisions, and concealments of treasons done, perpetrated, or committed 
" out of the King's Majesty's realm of England and other His Grace's 
" dominions cannot nor may by the common laws of this realm be 
' ' inquired of, heard, and determined within this his said realm of 
" England." Your lordships see that the statutory tribunal under 26 
Henry VIII. was not the common law ; it was a statutory tribunal. " For 
" a plain remedy, order, and declaration therein to be had and made, be 
" it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that all manner of 
" offences being already made or declared, or hereafter to be made or 
" declared, by any of the laws and statutes of this realm to be treasons, 
" misprisions of treasons, or concealments of treason, and done, perpetrated, 
" or committed, or hereafter to be done, perpetrated, and committed by 

II any person or persons out of this realm of England shall be from hence- 
" forth inquired of, heard, and determined before the King's justices of 
' ' his bench for pleas to be holden before himself by good and lawful men 
" of the same shire where the said bench shall sit and be kept, or else be 
" before such Commissioners 1 and in such shire of the realm as shall be 
" assigned by the King's Majesty's Commission, and by good and lawful 
" men of the same shire in like manner and form to all intents and pur- 
{< poses as if such treasons, misprision of treasons, or concealments of 
" treasons had been done, perpetrated, and committed within the same 
" shire whereof they .shall be so inquired of, heard, and determined as is 
" aforesaid." There the common law comes in, and comes in, I submit, 
for the first time. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It might be so, except that you leave out, as 
it seems to me, the power of the Crown to issue Commissions for the trial 
of^ these offences, not the judges of assize, oyer and terminer, but Com- 
missions for the trial of treasons done outside the realm. 

Q 225 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. SULLIVAN By this time there has been, on both sides, such a 
search made that if in truth you could find anterior to the date of the 
statutes I have mentioned such Commissions issuing they would have been 
produced. Records much anterior to that are produced here, and at the 
trial below were debated and touched upon. When you cannot find these 
Commissions, and if you do find that where such Commissions are issued, 
they are issued under statute in every case, as far as I know I speak, of 
course, subject to correction that, I submit, is a very strong argument that 
it required statutory authority. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING When do you find a Commission which was 
issued by statutory authority? Which is the first of them? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I cannot tell you. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING When you find what Hale, Coke, and Hawkins 
thought about thisi matter it really will not do to say, " Find the par- 
" ticular Commission; find the document.' 7 It will not do. The War 
of the Roses took place in England, and this statute of Henry VIII. was 
passed when England was only just settling down from a long period of 
devastating civil war. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I will have to deal with the authority of Coke and 
Hale, and I hope to show your lordship that Coke is an authority which 
from the earliest times ha been open to comment, especially Lord Coke's 
views on the laws of treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING You rely on the passage in Stephens' Com- 
mentaries, do you, where he deprecates Lord Coke? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It goes away behind Stephens Pulton and Keeling in 
the early part of the eighteenth century are not less severe than Stephens. 
You find Stephens, and you find all the historians rather deprecating 
Coke, and suggesting that he exercises no judgment of his own with respect 
to these matters. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Did Lord Coke only go wrong about the law 
of treason, or are his other conclusions wrong? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Some of them. It is as impossible for a man to be 
always wrong as it is for him to be always right. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Many judges have ascertained that for them- 
selves. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Coke is referred to as the foundation of this, and when 
I come to deal with him I will point it out. We have investigated the 
authorities cited by Coke for the proposition he advances, and it certainly 
is peculiar that they have nothing to say to the case, and certainly justify 
the observation made both in Stephens, Keeling, and Pulton, and others 
that Lord Coke was rather fond of citing a case as being a precedent 
and authority that had nothing whatever to say for the proposition for 
which he cites it. That is certainly true of his passages on treason, and 
I will deal with his authorities, and show that he cites a number of authori- 
ties asi justifying his text that have no relation whatever even to the 
subject-matter of the text. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Is this the argument so far, that the Act of 26 
Henry VIII. had made a foreign treason for the first time, and had not 
provided a satisfactory means of dealing with it except by a special Com- 
mission ? 
226 



Appeal Proceedings. 

Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN And that 35 Henry VIII. provided that these 
foreign treasons should be tried at common law? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN And from that you infer that it could not have 
been tried at common law before 35 Henry VIII.? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord, that is my argument. 35 Henry VIII. 
was passed obviously because doubts had arisen. I have already read to 
your lordships 26 Henry VIII. Obviously doubts had arisen about pro- 
cedure, which even at that comparatively late period was still a crucial 
matter in criminal proceedings. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN It would follow, would it not, that after 35 Henry 
VIII. was passed those treasons which by 26 Henry VIII. had been made 
treasons for the first time foreign treasons could be tried at common law ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. It certainly is strange if the common law had 
seizin of such matters that a statute should be passed with regard to 
foreign treasons in 35 Henry VIII., notwithstanding the statute of 26 
Henry VIII., giving jurisdiction to the Court of King's Bench , the Court 
of King's Bench not having been the Court to which on three previous 
occasions! Parliament had assigned the trial of foreign treasons where 
Parliament had dealt with foreign treasons. " Where the bench shall 
" sit and be kept, or else before such Commissioners as shall be assigned 
" by the King's Commission " there is kept alive the power to assign 
by Commission " and by good and lawful men of the same shire in like 
" manner and form to all intents and purposes' as if such treasons, mis- 
" prisions of treasons, or concealments of treasons had been done, per- 
" petrated, and committed within the same shire where they shall be so 
"inquired of, heard, and determined as is aforesaid." My lords, the 
matter is confirmed by a statute of 5 & 6 Edward VI., chapter 11, which 
is, " That if any of the King's subjects, denizens, or other do commit or 
"practice out of the limits of this realm" it is practically a repetition 
with a slight variation, which is an important variation, of 26 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN It first of all makes certain acts treasons within 
the realm, declaring by words that the King is a heretic. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, and it constitutes some new treasons. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Declaring it by writing is made a treason, and 
detaining from the King his castles within the realm is made a treason. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There are a number of new treasons. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN And then it proceeds to section 6. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is the section I was coming to. The earlier 
sections are not printed. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN You may take it that they are substantially the 
same as the treasons in 26 Henry VIII. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, it was practically a repetition, teaching that the 
King is a heretic, writing that the King is a heretic, depriving the King 
of the castles within the realm, and so on. Then it proceeds, " And, 
" moreover, be it enacted that if any of the King's subjects, denizens, or 
" other do commit or practice" the next words are important " out of 
" the limits of this realm in any outward parts " that is still 26 Henry 
VIII. " any of the offences which by this Act are made or heretofore now 

227 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



" standing in force have been made treasons, that then such treasons, 
11 whatsoever they may or wheresoever they shall happen so to be done or 
" committed, shall be inquired and presented by the oaths of twelve good 
" and lawful men upon good and probable evidence and witness in such 
" shire and county of this realm, and before such persons as it shall please 
" the King, hisi said heirs or successors, to appoint by Commission under 
" his great seal in like manner and form as treasons committed within 
"this realm have been used to be inquired of and presented; and that 
"upon every indictment and presentment founden and made of any such 
" treasons and certified into the King's Bench like process and other cir- 
" cumstance shall be there made." Again you get back to the Commission 
going out rather than to the Court of King's Bench. But it is in terms 
practically the same as 26 Henry VIII., and it extends to new treasons, 
and/or theretofore declared treasons out of the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I suggest that the procedure in 26 Henry VIII. 
and in this section is procedure for getting the presentment rather than 
for getting a trial. It provides that they shall be presented, and then 
it shall be certified to the King's Bench. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, and then by 5 & 6 Edward VI. you would pro- 
ceed under 35 Henry VIII. It was the absence of procedure in 26 Henry 
VIII. probably that necessitated the passing of 35 Henry VIII. That 
would appear to be the stumbling-block as to procedure between the two 
sections. Then, my lords, the Act of Mary I. swept away all statutory 
treasons, and restored Edward III., and 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, chapter 10, 
dealt, among other things, with the case of minors, which I need not 
trouble about, and it provided that all trials of treasons shall be according 
to the course of the common law. In the statutes again and again you 
come across the two matters of compassing death and levying war within 
the realm. The exception I previously cited to your lordships is 13 
Charles II., chapter 1, where, apparently, having dealt with compassing, 
it provides as high treason the levying of war within or without the 
realm. Except for that statute, although the levying of war is dealt 
with in three other statutes, it is always within the realm, and 13 Charles 
II., chapter 1, is notable as having extended the office of levying war to 
without the realm. When you come to the Williamite statutes they also 
necessarily deal with war outside the realm, but they deal with it in a 
somewhat different manner. 9 William III., chapter 1, dealt with offences 
which are probably offences to be committed abroad, because it is an offence 
to go into France without a licence or to return from France without a 
licence, and to serve the Pretender in France, and the statutory provision 
is that the offence may be triable in any county again the procedure which 
is always the concomitant of the statute which purports to create a crime 
outside the body of the county, " And be it further enacted that where any 
"of the offences against this Act shall be committed out of this realm 
" the same may be alleged and laid, inquired of, and tried in any county 
"of this realm." That enables you to allege a fictitious venue with 
regard to the crimes. As I have pointed out, up to the present the venue 
is never a. fictitious venue, it is always a statutory venue to be fixed by 
the King's Commission ; but here the words are, ' ' The same may be 
" alleged and laid, inquired of, and tried in any county of this 1 realm." 
228 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



That enables the prosecution to lay a venue which is something akin to 
the fictitious venues in civil proceedings. Then, my lords, 13 William III., 
chapter 3, is also a statute which deals with correspondence with the 
Pretender, giving assistance to him, and sending money to him. It 
winds up, " That where any of the offences against this Act shall be 
" committed out of this realm, the same may be alleged and laid, inquired 
" of, and tried in any county in this kingdom of England." Soldiers are 
on a somewhat different basis. In 1 Anne, Statute II., chapter 20, you 
find it made high treason with regard to persons in military service, an 
officer or soldier out of England, to correspond with the enemy or to give 
advice or intelligence. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Did the statute of 9 William III. create new 
treasons? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit it did. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING New treasons, and said they should be tried in 
any county? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What was the necessity for it? If you look 
at 35 Henry VIII. that statute says, " For as much as some doubts and 
" questions have been moved," and so on, " for a plain remedy, order, 
"and declaration therein to be had and made, be it enacted that all 
" manner of offences being already made or declared, or hereafter to be 
" made or declared, by any of the laws and statutes of this realm to be 
" treasons, misprisions of treasons, or concealments of treasons, and done, 
" perpetrated, or committed, or hereafter to be done, perpetrated, or 
" committed by any person or persons out of this realm of England, shall 
" be from henceforth inquired of, heard, and determined before the King's 
" justices of his bench for pleas to be holden before himself by good and 
" lawful men of the same shire, where the said bench shall sit and be kept, 
" or else before such Commissioners and in such shire of the realm as shall 
" be appointed by the King's Majesty's Commission." What was the 
necessity of that statute? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The change of venue. Under the statute 35 Henry 
VIII. it was either where the King's Bench were sitting, or else in a venue 
to be fixed by the Commission, if there was a special Commission. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Not where the King's Bench were sitting. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " Where the said bench shall sit and be kept." 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING "The King's justices of his bench." 

Mr. SULLIVAN " To be holden before himself by good and lawful men 
" of the same shire, where the said bench shall sit and be kept." Or, 
alternatively, such county as the Commissioners are appointed to sit. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING My brother Lawrence suggests this probably 
means Middlesex ' ' Where the justices of his bench " that means the 
King's Bench " shall sit and be kept." The King's Bench long ago 
followed the Sovereign. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. Alternatively, it is by special Com- 
mission in the shire appointed by the special Commission. There is a 
change made in William III. You may allege the venue. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Could you put it in any county? 

229 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. SULLIVAN You could put it in any county, and try it at common 
law, alleging what might be called a fictitious venue. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING That is practically all it does, is it not? It 
says you might have tried them, because this statute 35 Henry VIII. 
applies to treasons to be created, and therefore it would apply to treasons 
created in the reign of William III. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING If it had not been for that statute they would 
have been tried in the King's Bench sitting in Middlesex, or wherever the 
King might happen to be with his judges. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING That statute says they may be tried in any 
county. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, I agree, 35 Henry VIII. would have enabled them 
to have been tried either where the King's Bench was, or any special 
venue fixed by the special Commission. But at common law they would 
only have been tried in Middlesex. What I am pointing out is that by 
1 Mary all trials of treasons were to be at common law, and then when 
you come to the subsequent legislation for the purpose of complying with 
the common law, if you are going outside Middlesex, where the King's 
Bench sat, you need a statutory provision that you may allege the venue 
as being in the place where you are trying him under the common law, 
otherwise you cannot try him under the common law. 

On the other hand, I was mentioning that soldiers were under a 
different code. Apparently the first statute with, regard to soldiers is the 
statute of Anne, with the two different chapters, making it high treason 
for a soldier on land out of England or upon the sea to correspond with 
the enemy, or enter into relations with him, as it was extended by 3 and 4 
Anne. There also the trial was to be as if committed in a county to 
be assigned by the Commission that tries it. Those were to be Commission 
trials. That is in the case of soldiers. In 3 & 4 Anne there is a 
similar provision that it is triable in any county. 7 Anne, chapter 4, 
is important, because one of the cases cited is a case of soldiers. It is 
section 48, I think, but again I am citing from the collection of Queen 
Anne statutes, and they do not print the numbers of the sections. " And 
" forasmuch as there is not &ny effectual provision made for the govern- 
"ment of Her Majesty's land forces out of the realms of Great Britain 
' ' and Ireland, be it further enacted and declared that if any officer or soldier 
f ' in Her Majesty's army shall either upon land out of Great Britain or 
" upon the sea hold correspondence with any rebel or enemy of Her 
" Majesty, or give them advice or intelligence either by. letters, messages, 
" signs, or token, or any manner of way whatsoever, or shall treat with 
" such rebels or enemies, or enter into any condition with them without 
" Her Majesty's licence or licence of the general, lieutenant-general, or 
"chief commander, then every such person so offending shall be deemed 
" and adjudged to be guilty of high treason, and suffer such pains and 
" penalties as in the case of high treason." There we get into a special 
code of laws, which we know grew into the Army Act which commenced 
with the Mutiny Act, and made provision for high treason triable at 
common law, presumably under 1 Mary by a combination of the two 
230 



Appeal Proceedings . 



Mr. Sullivan 



statutes with regard to soldiers. Then 7 Anne, chapter 21, provides 
specially for the trial of Scotsmen for treason, and they are- to be tried 
" by good and lawful men of the same shire in like manner to all intents 
" and purposes as if such treason had been done or committed in the 
" same shire, where they shall be inquired of, heard, and determined." 
That is practically the same power to lay the venue as in the statutes of 
Anne. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAY Do these later statutes throw any light on the 
question 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, except to this extent, that even when you get 
to these later statutes, probably from too great caution, but still the 
caution is there, to provide venues even when you get to the eighteenth 
century wherever you have a provision dealing with an outside crime 
(it is that feature that I am seeking to impress) when you get into the 
eighteenth century you have the question of venue still being laboured to 
safeguard the administration of the statutes, notwithstanding all that had 
gone before. That question of the venue surviving so late does, I submit, 
throw a light on what the question of venue must have been when you go 
back some hundreds of years, and consider what was the state of affairs 
at the time of Edward III., when, even in the time of Queen Anne, Parlia- 
ment is careful to see that there is a venue to try a foreign offence. 

Now, my lord, I propose to deal with the authorities in the nature of 
text-books, and also with such, cases as we have been able to find bearing 
on this subject. It is right that I should tell your lordships that between 
the years 1860 and 1870, at all events, subsequent to the passing of the 
Treason Felony Act, all the special statutes I have been quoting from, 
28 Henry VIII. and those extension statutes, have been repealed. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Repealed by the Statute Law Revision 
Act? 

Mr. SULLIVAN 26 Henry VIII. and 5 & 6 Edward VI. were repealed 
by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1863. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE' That is the method of repeal to which 
you are alluding? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, and as I mentioned in the course of my 
review of the statutes (I have not cited the statutes), again and again they 
have gone back to the statute of 25 Edward III. by clearing out all what I 
might call fancy treasons from time to time; I think four times in the 
course of the period I have covered. 

Now, my lord, the original idea, that adhering to the King's enemies 
was an offence that might be committed out of the realm, is, I think, to 
be traced to Coke, page 3 of the Third Institute. Having quoted the 
statute, he sums up the different heads of offence which, he says, are 
created by the statute. I want to call attention not only to the case 
of adhering to, but to the case immediately preceding it, which, I presume, 
is the same authority, each part of the sentence having the same authority. 
He says the first concerneth death; the second ooncerneth and he sets 
out his catalogue; the third is levying war against the King. That is 
his sole statement of it. I submit that, except under the statute of 
Charles II., which I gave your lordships a a notable exception, levy- 
ing war against the King was limited by the statute of Edward III. 

231 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



to levying war against the King within his realm. But Lord Coke states 
it at page 3, " The third is levying war against the King," without any 
limitation of any sort, kind, or description. The words are always the 
same. "Or if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his 
" realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them 
" aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere, and thereof be probably 
" attained of open deed." Coke, at page 3, sums up the third as levying 
war against the King without any limitation of any kind, sort, or descrip- 
tion. The fourth is adhering to the King's 1 enemies within the realm or 
without, and declaring the same by some overt act. Tour lordships see 
that it is not a quotation of the words of the statute, but he purports in 
the following page to cite the statute verbatim, and to comment upon 
each sentence and phrase of it, but the strange thing is that at the bottom 
of page 10, paragraph 15, where he deals with this matter which we have 
to discuss before your lordships he misquotes the statute, " Ou soit 
" adherent as enemies nostre seigniour le Roy, a eux donant aide et 
" comfort en son roialme et aylors" 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Is that the way he cites it? 

Mr . SULLIVAN Yes . 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING He leaves out the words " en son roialme" 

Mr. SULLIVAN He does. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Does he put it in inverted commas? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Has your lordship the Third Institute before you? 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING No. I have a print of the statute. My 
brother Atkin and I have been to the Record Office, and we have read the 
original of this statute in Norman French, and, more than that, we have 
compared it 

Mr. SULLIVAN Compared it with the reproduction? 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING No, compared it with the Parliamentary Roll 
of the same date, which probably was written rather before it ; and we care- 
fully observed the writing and the punctuation, if that is worth anything. 
There is a little difference. It is not only Lord Coke who misquotes 
things, because, if you take the Statute Roll and the Parliamentary Roll, 
which the Record Office people treat as quite contemporary nobody knows 
for certain which is the earlier, but, from inquiries made, they think that 
the Parliamentary Roll was the original, and that the Statute Roll was 
copied from it the Parliamentary Roll says, " Donant a eux ou comfort 
" en son roialme ou par aylors" and the Statute Roll says, " Donant a 
" eux aide et comfort en son roialme ou par aylors." 

Mr. SULLIVAN I conceive there might be a question arising on that 
limb of the sentence, but what I wish to point out is that in the Third 
Institute, printed in italics, and purporting to be the statute when he 
comes to deal with it, sentence by sentence, he prints the statute bit by 
bit in inverted commas, in brackets, and in italics. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I do not think it was in inverted commas in the 
original. I am looking at the fourth edition, and I fancy it was almost 
the same printed in bold print in a kind of bracket. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is italicised in the edition I am reading from. 
Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN What is the date of your edition? 
Mr. SULLIVAN 1809. 
232 



Appeal Proceedings . 

Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN The fourth edition is 1669. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In paragraph 15 the words " In his realm " are left 
out, and if, indeed, the statute is quoted truly at the top of the disserta- 
tion part the dissertation is justified in all its entirety. If you leave 
out those words " in his realm " of the statute, leaving them out in the 
first part, and including them in the second only as being descriptive of 
the whole sentence, then I could have no case on this branch of my argu- 
ment at all. But it is because the statute includes those words that 
I submit the meaning of the statute is perfectly plain, and you 
can only arrive at a conclusion in favour of Lord Coke's statement of the 
law by arriving at the conclusion that in truth the words " in his realm " 
ought to be left out of the statute in order to make the sense that Lord 
Coke says the statute bears; because I do submit first and last that what 
your lordships have to do is to read the statute and form your opinion, in 
the first instance, whether, on your first reading of the statute, it does 
not convey a perfectly clear meaning to your mind. If it does that, that 
is the meaning of the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What becomes of the maxim, " Second thoughts 
" are best"? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It does not apply to the reading of statutes, because 
I think what Lord Esher said in the construction of a will is perfectly true 
also with regard to statutes. " This case," he said, " would be a per- 
" fectly plain case to any man who did not commence by confusing his 
" mind with reading a large number of other cases." 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING That is a dangerous doctrine when you have 
been addressing the Court for two hours. 

Adjourned for a short time. 

Mr. SULLIVAN When the Court adjourned I was pointing out that 
when it comes to the detailed commentary on page 10, Coke first of all fails 
to quote in what obviously purports to be a quotation from the statute 
the limitation " within the realm," and leaves it " or be adherent to the 
" King's enemies 9 giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or else- 
" where." That, of course, completely alters the meaning of the statute. 
It is right to say that the dissertation upon the statute then follows as a 
matter of course upon lines which have been apparently approved by 
citing the statute with a clause omitted. If the clause were included the 
comment on the whole of the statute as it would then stand would, I 
submit, be more valuable, but for any writer to comment on a clause 
which he first misquotes is a dangerous proceeding, which is apt to lead 
him astray. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN He has already at page 1 set out the statute 
correctly, and he has translated it correctly, and this is only a part of 
his commentary where he purports to set out some of the words. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That I had stated. He quotes the whole statute on 
page 1, and at page 3 he summarises, and on page 10 he purports to deal 
with this clause. It is the commentary under this clause which has become 
the foundation of what I submit is the plain error of the writer. " This 
" is here explained, viz., in giving aide and comfort to the King's enemies 
"within the realm or without; delivery or surrender of the King's castles 

233 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



" or forte by the King's captain thereof to the King's enemie within the 
" realme or without for reward, &o., is an adhering to the King's enemy, and 
"consequently treason declared by this Act." These oases that he cites 
of the delivering of castles are cases, I submit, not at common law at all, 
but within the jurisdiction of the constable and marshal without doubt 
or question, and therefore no difficulty applies to those oases, for the 
jurisdiction of the constable and marshal was not limited by any question of 
venue or by the rules of the common law. It is for that reason that I 
cited the passages from Viner. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN You could appeal a man for a crime committed 
abroad before the constable and marshal. You could not have an appeal 
for a crime unless it was a crime. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Your argument is that it is not a crime. 

Mr. SULLIVAN My argument is that it is not a crime in the sense in 
which we are dealing with it, namely, it is not a matter to which the statute 
refers, because, I submit, the statute refers to the administration of the 
King's Courts of the common law within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN If you could have a,n appeal before the marshal 
for treason committed abroad, what was it that gave you power to appeal 
him for treason, except on the footing that it was a crime or a wrong? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The jurisdiction of the marshal was really a jurisdic- 
tion for persons, originally, at all events, who were serving His Majesty 
in a military expedition. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Take the very case you are arguing now, the 
case of Casement. Is your point this, that he could not be tried in the 
King's Bench, as he was tried, but he could have been lawfully tried by 
virtue of a special Commission issued by the Crown? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, that is not my argument. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Why not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN My argument is that he is indicted as having com- 
mitted an offence against the statute of Edward III., and that the matter 
alleged is not an offence within the statute of Edward III. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The statute of Edward III. says that it may 
be an offence to commit certain treasons outside the realm " within the 
" realm or elsewhere," that is outside. The statute says there may be 
such crimes, there may be such treasons, how could they have been tried ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit the statute does not say that. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE You read the word " elsewhere " out 
of the statute altogether. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. I had better deal at once with the construction 
as I submit of the statute. The statute deals first of all with levying war, 
and it is limited within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It begins by compassing or imagining 
the King's death. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It does not limit that to within the 
realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is unlimited in terms, but would have to be 
administered by the common law Courts, and in respect of the limitation 
of the declaration of treason theretofore made by the common law Courts, 
234 



Appeal Proceedings . 



Mr. Sullivan 



so that men within the King's peace may know what acts are treason 
and what are not. That would be limited in the way I argued this 
morning. It would be limited to the Courts that could take cognisance 
of such acts as would constitute evidence of compassing, but in terms it 
is not limited as to place, and is outside the realm, probably because the 
King's dominions extended far outside the realm, and with regard to- 
compassing might apply to compassing both in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, 
and France and other of the King's dominions. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING You say the King's dominions extended far 
outside the realm. Were the counties which ultimately became the 
United States of America within the realm or without? 

Mr. SULLIVAN They were without. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING New Hampshire was one of them. That was 
without the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING There was no' doubt about that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I do not like to affirm that any proposition is without 
doubt. Lord Coke has not dealt with it. But I submit they were not 
part of the King's realm. They were part of the King's dominions, and 
when you read the statutes, as far as the statute of Edward III. goes, I 
think you will see that there is a clear line of demarcation both of 
administration and of principle as to what acts are committed within the 
realm and what acts are committed outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING You are asking us to adopt the view of this 
statute which many people have considered before any of us here present. 
Have you got Arohbold among your other books? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING If you turn to page 1033 you will see this, and 

that is why I asked you where New Hampshire was " In 1775 the law 

" officers (Thurlow, A.G., and Wedderburn, S.G.) had been informed that 

"in 13 Anne an Act against high treason had been passed in the province 

' ' of New Hampshire ; that the said Act was disallowed by Order in 

" Council in 1718; that it was conceived there was no law of that province 

<e at present existing for the trial and punishment of that offence. They 

:< were asked in what manner it was proper to proceed against persons for 

:e high treason committed in New Hampshire. They replied, ' We are 

' humbly of opinion that it requires no Act of a provincial Legislature 

' to constitute the offence of high treason in any of His Majesty's planta- 

' tions. The crimes may be prosecuted in the Superior Court of New 

' Hampshire (which by 2 William III. hath the full criminal jurisdiction 

' within that government which His Majesty's Court of King's Bench 

' exercises here), or in this country in the statutes of 35 Henry VIII., 

' as the occasion may require.' ' 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. Surely, does not that confirm the view I pre- 
sented to the Court, that New Hampshire was outside the realm 1 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Yes, but what becomes of your argument? 
New Hampshire is outside the realm, and Lord Thurlow and Lord Lough- 
borough, as I think he was afterwards, say that for treason committed there 
you may indict him and prosecute him here, because he has committed the 
treason outside the realm, he has committed it elsewhere. 

235 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, under 35 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON What made it treason in New Hampshire? 

Mr. SULLIVAN 26 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN No, according to you, the effect of that was done 
away with by 1 Mary. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, 1 Mary I did not open in terms to your lordships. 
1 Mary provided that no acts should be treason except the acts mentioned 
in the statute of Edward III. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN But it still leave it treason if committed abroad. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, I submit that is the meaning of the statute. No 
act is to be deemed an act of treason except such acts, as are specified 
From henceforth no act, deed, or offence being by Act of Parliament or 
statute made treason, petit treason, or misprision of treason by words, 
writing," and so forth, "but only such as be declared and expressed 
to be treason, petit treason, or misprision of treason in or by the Act 
of Parliament or statute made in the twenty -third year of King Edward 
III." What I have been quoting from is a " collection of the several 
statutes and parts of statutes now in force relating to high treason and 
misprision of high treason," ordered to be printed by Parliament on 
the 20th April, 1709, and to be published when subscribed by the judges. 
So that I have just read to your lordships the statutes which include that 
statute of 26 Henry VIII., and that is subscribed, as you will see, at the end 
by all the judges as being in their opinion, at all events, the statutes then 
current and in force. That is the view, I submit, of 26 Henry VIII. 
Such acts as were treasonable acts under the statute of Edward III., under 
the statute of Henry VIII. were treasonable acts wherever they were com- 
mitted. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I still do not follow what your answer is to my 
brother Scratton. If this opinion is correct, this assumes that there is 
such a thing as committing treason out of the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is perfectly true. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN And that it could be tried in England. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Ye, in 1775. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN You say it does not follow that the form of treason 
1st adhering to the King's enemies out of the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is one of my arguments, that compassing being 
unlimited is a thing that might take place anywhere, but that treason of 
adhering is limited by the statute to taking place within the realm, and 
it is triable so long as being adherent is 1 the offence, which is the state of 
mind existing in the individual ; and the extent of the jurisdiction given by 
the statute was that you might try and inquire into his state of mind in 
the light of events which might have taken place either within the realm 
or without the realm. That is to say, the aid or comfort he might have 
given which would be evidence of his adherence need not be aid and comfort 
in the place where he is, in fact, adhering within the realm, but might be 
rendered to the enemy outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Do you say there are two substantive 
treasons in that branch of the section? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, one. Being adherent is the only one. 
236 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE If that is so, the " elsewhere" applies 
to it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The <( elsewhere " applies to the aid and comfort, which 
is the overt act by which you prove the adhering. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE You cannot have a trial for treason 
without an overt act, can you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE You say the first branch of the thing is 
a treason which you cannot try? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Oh, no. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Either it is one and the same treason, 
or it is two treasons, one of which you cannot try. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit that there is only one treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE That is adhering. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. You may prove that he is adhering within the 
realm, but acts which have taken place outside the realm inside or out- 
side. The offence is, " Or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, 
" giving to them aid and comfort in the realm," or outside of it. His 
adherence may manifest itself by his giving aid and comfort either within 
the realm or outside of it. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE But you have to say that it cannot be 
an adherence within the realm as a triable offence. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If he is in the realm and is adhering to the King's 
enemies he is, being within the realm and within the King' si peace, 
giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies anywhere. The idea of 
treachery which underlies it is there apparent. The treachery consists 
of the man being within the protection of the King's peace, in his realm, 
and nevertheless assisting the enemies of the realm by giving them aid 
and comfort. He assists them by his presence in the realm, just as in the 
first case, and, indeed, the six other cases reported. His being within the 
realm enables him to get the information or to get the material which 
becomes useful to them, although they may not be within the realm at 
all, and his adherency and his work within the realm may not be mani- 
fested within the realm, although the offence is committed within the 
realm, and, in order to prove the offence, it may be necessary to show 
the events taking place in places not within the realm. But the offence 
which you are proving by evidence of acts outside the realm is nevertheless 
an offence taking place within the realm by the man who within the realm 
is collecting information of a private character, matters of that descrip- 
tion, or perhaps it may be stores, and letting that information or letting 
that aid or comfort go to the enemies of the realm who may be outside. 
But the man must be inside. It is his action, his state of mind, his 
treachery, that is being committed within the realm where he is, although 
it is manifested by something which takes place, owing to his agency, 
outside. 

Mr." JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE I do not follow you. You can only 
show it by some overt act or other. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Take the overt acts in the cases that have arisen. 
The reported cases that have arisen have all been cases of persons within 
the realm collecting information as to the disposition of the King's forces 

237 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 



or ships within the realm, or matters of that kind, which would be useful 
for an enemy to know, and transmitting that to the enemy outside ; just as 
in the first case I quoted of the person who cam into the King's Council 
and ascertained the King's secrets and then transmitted them. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN In those cases of sending information, is not the 
overt act laid as being within this country, as a rule? 

Mr. SULLIVAN In the reported cases, yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Every act done within this country 
must be an overt act within this country. 

Mr. SULLIVAN But, my lord, the statute would provide that even if 
you could prove no overt act within this 1 country, and if your offence was 
something which took place elsewhere, in Flanders or in France, you could 
prove that the man was adhering within the realm by reason of something 
set on foot by his agent within the realm that manifested itself outside 
the realm. You might show, for instance, that he within the realm had 
contrived that stores and munitions or something of that sort had reached 
the enemy outside the realm where the enemy was. You could show that 
he within the realm had collected information, and although you could 
prove no overt act within the realm, you could show that he was doing 
that and adhering by showing that information which only could have been 
collected by him, and for a treasonable purpose, had, in fact, reached an 
enemy that was never within the realm at all. There the overt act was 
outside, but the crime was committed by the treachery of the man who 
never left the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON In your view may the crime of adhering within 
the realm be proved by overt acts entirely elsewhere? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON What meaning do you give to " within the 
" realm " supposing all that was proved was that a man elsewhere had 
assisted the enemy? Is it necessary to prove presence in the realm, or 
what? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is necessary to prove that he was within the realm. 
He must be present within the realm in committing the offence, although 
the overt act by which you show what he was concerned in within the 
realm might be an overt act completely outside the realm. He must be 
within the realm. The adherency is a matter personal to the man. It 
is the man who is doing the adhering, and he must be within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It is the man who is doing the treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT If the indictment in this case had been for adhering 
within the realm, that could have been proved by the acts he did in 
Germany. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Not that he did, but if you found that he was within 
the realm you might prove by acts in Germany that he who had never 
been in Germany at all that X.Y.Z., who had never been in Germany at 
all, was guilty of adhering to the King's enemies who were in Germany, 
and assisting them, although he himself never went there and never went 
outside the realm ; and you could prove that by events which took place 
in Germany from which an inference could be drawn that he remaining 
at home was, in fact, assisting them and adhering to them. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE How could you do that? It is an 
238 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



impossibility. It would not admissible evidence. Unless he was con- 
nected with the act he could not be charged with it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Take any concrete case of sending information. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE That is; an act done in this country. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The overt manifestation of that act done within this 
country might not be manifest within the country at all. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It is either an act of his or it is not. 
If he is within the country doing the act, then the act is done within the 
country. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The overt act by which you show that he within the 
country was adhering may involve the investigation of things that happened 
not within the country, but in Germany. Take the case of conveying 
information as in the nine reported cases in which there has been adherence. 
They are all cases of supplying information by a person within the realm to 
the use of persons not within the realm. The overt act may be proved 
by the receipt outside the realm of information. You may prove acts 
done in Germany from which a jury would be entitled to infer that the 
man within the realm was responsible for these overt acts that happened 
outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE How could he be responsible except for 
acts done by him? 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Are you suggesting the case of a man sending out 
an agent with a general authority to give money to the enemy? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I was going to answer, my lord The Queen v. Mulcahy. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Every time he gives money to the enemy through 
his agent who is abroad there is an overt act by the principal within the 
realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In The Queen v. Mulcahy the man who was convicted 
of treasonable practices in Dublin had never been within 3000 miles of 
Dublin at the time the acts were committed. His 1 agent had done them. 
The accused was, in fact, in America during the rising of 1867, and he 
was tried and convicted for it. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Is there any case in which there is an overt 
act of adherence without the realm where the prisoner has not done some 
act within the realm? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Some overt acts, yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE, How? I cannot think of it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Take it that the prisoner being in America, appoints 
an agent to do certain acts in Germany with the assistance of the Germans, 
and then the prisoner comes and remains within the realm. He is within 
the realm, and his agent is doing acts outside the realm. He does 
nothing within the realm. But if The Queen v. Mulcalvy is rightly decided 
the acts of his agent may be proved to show that he, although doing 
nothing overtly himself, was adhering to the King'si enemies all the time 
he was within the King's peace. 

Mr, JUSTICE ATKIN Mulcahy was a case of compassing. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN He was not indicted for adhering, and the overt 
act was a conspiracy. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was a peculiar case. 

239 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I am looking at the report of the case of three 
English and Irish appeals. I have no doubt the indictment is set out 
correctly. The first count was feloniously compassing to deprive and 
depose the Queen, and then it sets out the overt act, that he did conspire 
to raise money and levy insurrection, and that he conspired to move and 
stir up certain persons in the United States of America to invade Great 
Britain. The second count was feloniously compassing and intending to 
levy war against the Queen in order to compel her to change her measures 
and counsels. The third count was feloniously compassing to move and 
stir certain foreigners to invade the United Kingdom. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think your lordship will find that the levying war 
was, in fact, done in Dublin, where the prisoner was not. You will find 
that is so in the Court of Error. It only went to the Lords on a technical 
ground. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN These were all felonies under the Act of 2 Victoria. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, under the Act of 1848. I pointed out at the 
commencement of my argument there was no procedure in this statute of 
Edward III., and accordingly procedure would have to be at common law 
under this statute. " Be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm" 
is a clear definition of the offence. It is a state of being. It is solely 
a question of being adherent, relating to the attitude of the man. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE* You must read on beyond that to make 
it intelligible. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am going to. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE; It has to be " probably attainted of 
" open deed by the people of their condition." How could you get a 
treasonable deed unless you get the state of his mind ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere 
is, I submit, a description of the nature of his adherency. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Is it not quite reasonable to suppose that these 
words, " giving to them aid and comfort," are words in apposition, words 
which explain what adherent is? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Reading then in that way they are descriptive of the 
adherence. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do you agree that is the way to read them 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is the way I think I am reading them. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Then let us see how you can read them. You 
can read them that it means this, if a man be adherent to the King's 
enemies! in his realm by giving to them aid and comfort in his realm, 
or if he be adherent to the King's enemies elsewhere by giving them aid 
and comfort elsewhere. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit that is a method of reading which would do 
violence to the context. I submit the way to read them truly as descrip- 
tive of what is adhering is to read them as being adjectival ; and reading 
it without the adjective it is, if a man be adherent to the King's enemies 
in his realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLINC That may be, but the thing to be explained is, 

what is meant by adherent? I thought you agreed just now that the 

words " giving to them aid and comfort" were to explain the adhering. 

Supposing somebody had said, " What do you mean by adhering? Do 

240 



Appeal Proceedings. 



HP. Sullivan 



" you mean my simply saying I approve of the King's enemies? " no, 
that is not treason. The treason is denned as adhering, and adhering is 
giving to them aid and comfort. If they are enemies within his realm 
you are adhering to them if you give to them aid and comfort within the 
realm, and if they are enemies outside the realm you are adhering to them 
if you give to them aid and comfort outside the realm. My brother 
Atkin and I took the trouble to look at the Parliamentary Roll and 
the Statute Roll. They are both the same in this respect, that you 
get the words " adherent as enemies nostre seigniour le Roy," 
and then there is a break. I mention this because there was a great 
deal of argument at the trial about commas and brackets. If you 
look at the original Norman French you will find there is a break. You 
do not see brackets or commas, but they put a transverse line right 
through. There is a break after " le Roy en le roialme" and then comes 
" donant a eux eid ou confort en son roialme ou par aillours" But if 
you look at the Parliamentary Roll there is just the same break after " en 
" le roialme," and then comes " donant a eux eid et confort en son 
" roialme," and then another break, the equivalent of the bracket con- 
tended for at the trial by the Attorney-General. That break is drawn right 
through the line, and you get the words " ou par aillours." If you 
look at the Statute Roll in that place where there is an undoubted break 
in the Parliamentary Roll there is a mark which we looked at very care- 
fully with a magnifying glass. It is not certain that it is a break just 
as it appears in the Parliamentary Roll, but we were inclined to think it 
was a break, not made with a pen, but a break which had come by the 
folding in the course of all these six centuries. If you put that break after 
" donant a eux eid ou confort en son roialme " it is very much the worse 
for your argument. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If anything can be inferred from that, but I under- 
stood brackets did not exist in the sense of brackets. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING They are not brackets in the sense that they 
have not got a transverse line that runs at right angles, but there is a very 
distinct line drawn right through the line of writing, and that occurs every 
here and there where we should now perhaps put what I think are called 
breaks in the print. "WTiere we should put brackets these old scribes put 
a transverse line. It was very natural. They were doing it with a pen. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I think they really are to represent commas; 
they are reproduced in the reprint of the statute as commas. The 
Statute Roll is printed in the revised statutes exactly correctly. I sup- 
pose you would infer, if there was any importance to be attached to the 
difference, that they corrected the Parliamentary Roll from that which 
is the authority, namely, the Statute Roll. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It ought to be so, but I submit you cannot draw any 
inference from punctuation. The whole matter will have to be deter- 
mined without any theory as to punctuation arising from a fortuitous 
circumstance which is not the same in the two rolls, and, at all events, 
when your lordships are dealing with a penal statute, I humbly submit 
that crimes should not depend on the significance of breaks or of commas. 
If a crime depended on a comma, the matter should be determined in 
favour of the accused, and not of the Crown. 

R 241 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE If you can give an intelligible reading 
to the words disregarding them, then that might be so. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit the meaning to be given is perfectly 
intelligible. Although the statute has been in force so many years, there 
is only one case in which even an indictment can be found, and until the 
year 1903 there is no case in which there had been an argument or judg- 
ment upon the meaning of this part of the statute. Although there had 
been on this limb of the statute nine cases, they were all cases of adherency 
within the realm, and the proof of communications and information collected 
within the realm, or attempted proof to the enemies outside. The mean- 
ing, I submit, is perfectly clear, and you must get rid of the words ' ' in 
" his realm " altogether, and leave them out, as Lord Coke does, in order 
to arrive at his translation of them. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Lord C'oke sets out first of all the statute quite 
correctly, and then he wantsi to tell you how it is to be understood, and 
when he comes to tell you how it is to be understood, seeing that at that 
point the words <l en son roialme " are not necessary to the understanding, 
he leaves them out, as one often does in reading the section of a statute 
in order to make clear what the meaning is, and then you read it in two 
branches. If the man is indicted for aiding and comforting the King's 
enemies within the realm, then it is necessary to say that the aid and 
comfort must be given within the realm; if he is indicted for aiding and 
comforting the King's enemies outside the kingdom, then you do not need 
the words within the kingdom. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit if it is necessary in order to give it that 
meaning, or rather to prevent another meaning being apparent, to leave 
out these words, the Court in construing the statute cannot leave them 
out, but must take the meaning with those words in. If the words being 
in do not alter Coke's meaning of the phrase, there is no harm in inserting 
them, and there would be no object in leaving them out if they were con- 
sistent with his phrasing of it. I submit that is the case, and " giving 
" both aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere " is descriptive of 
adhering. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING I agree with you personally if you stop at 
" comfort." If you stop at " giving aid and comfort," yes, that de- 
scribes! the crime of adherence ; but you do not want " elsewhere " for that. 
You want the " elsewhere" when you are describing the crime to be com- 
mitted elsewhere. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Stopping at "comfort" and leaving out the adjectival 
phrase, " giving to them aid and comfort," how does the statute run? It 
runs " or by adhering to the King's enemies within his realm, in the 
" realm or elsewhere." Why is there any repetition of " in the realm "1 
I submit it is impossible to stop at the word " comfort," because then you 
would have a repetition of the words " in the realm," which would clearly 
be superfluous and unmeaning. Accordingly, to avoid repetition of the 
phrase, the repetition being unneeded, it is absolutely necessary, I submit, 
to read the whole phrase as being adjectival, as being descriptive of the 
fact of being adherent, which act of being adherent is then clearly denned 
as being within the realm. But let us consider this. What about levying 
war " Or if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm " 1 
242 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



There the limitation, I submit, is perfectly clear. Is the adherency to 
be something wider than levying war? If he takes up arms, and you 
indict him under that limb of the statute, it would be levying war against 
our Lord the King in his realm. If he does not take up arms he does 
something short of it ; but there is a much wider construction of the statute, 
according to Coke, and the man who takes up arms outside the realm is 
not guilty of levying war within the realm, but the man who gives him 
the information is guilty of the offence of high treason under the same 
statute. That is an anomaly. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do you say that if a man levied war against 
the King in one of his Colonies he would not be guilty of treason, if he 
raised an armed force and levied war against the King, say, in Australia 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN In every one of the Colonies he would now be guilty of 
treason. There is no doubt about it. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Guilty of treason under this statute. Never 
mind any other legislation. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The levying of war was confined by this statute to the 
realm for the reasons I have pointed out. The phrase " levying war" is 
repeated in Philip and Mary when we come to deal with compassing and 
levying war. Adherence does not seem to have been dealt with by statute 
at later periods, but compassing and imagining and levying war have been 
dealt with by legislation again and again. Levying war in the time even of 
Philip and Mary was 1 within the realm. Within the realm means some- 
thing both with regard to levying war and adherence, and it is a strange 
thing that the matter never until 1903 came up for argument, and was the 
subject of argument or judicial consideration prior to 1903, when The King v. 
Lynch was decided, and in The King v. Lynch there was a ruling on this 
point on a basis which I do not think can be contended as sound. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON In most of these cases the gentlemen who 
adhered to the enemies outside the realm took very good care not to come in 
again afterwards. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That would be the reason why no proceedings would 
be taken except for outlawry. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON In one case an attempt was made to try him. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That was a military governor, and, what is more, it 
was the castle at Calais, at that time an English borough returning two 
members of Parliament. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON I was thinking of The King v. Hulton. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In that case it was a process of outlawry, but it was 
the same thing. Of course he could have come back and traversed his 
indictment, and if he had stood his trial on the indictment his outlawry- 
would have been quashed. He is not tried and condemned on the indict- 
ment, but he is outlawed by process. The crime for which he was out- 
lawed is that he did not answer to the King's writ. He did not oome 
and stand his trial, and therefore he was outlawed. On the return to 
the writ he was outlawed for not coming forward to stand his trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING If he had come to stand his trial he had, 
according to you, a perfectly good legal objection to the indictment. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He had according to me. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Why did not he come and take it? 

243 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. SULLIVA>* In those days confidence in the administration of 
justice was not so well rooted as at present. This question of adherenoy 
was considered in The King v. Hidton, and in the trial in Ireland it was 
expressed that the adherency was in the person, although the enemies to 
whom he had adhered might be outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON I have not been quite clear as to what you 
are doing. I thought you were starting with the text writers, and were 
then going to deal with the authorities. Would it be possible to do it in 
some sort of order? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I stand reproved. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON It is our fault, I think, because we have been 
asking questions about all sorts of things. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I did intend to deal with Lord Coke and his authori- 
ties. With regard to hia authorities, he cites for his interpretation 43 of 
the Book of Assizes, items 28, 29, and 42. None of those cases has any 
reference at all to the statute or to the words of the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON He begins with John Britton's case. Is that 
one of the castle cases? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The first reference I have is 43 of Assizes, item 15 (a). 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON You seem to be beginning in the middle, if I 
may respectfully say so. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Apparently that is so. I took the reference as being 
there. Then the next is 43 of Assizes. Then there are references to the 
Rolls of Parliament, 7 Richard II., items 15, 17, and 24, and 7 Henry IV., 
item 47. That has nothing to do with treason at all. 7 Richard II.., 
item 15, was not a case of treason, but impeachment of the Bishop of 
Norwich for a number of offences, including peculation and breach of 
contract and general corruption f in respect of an agreement with the 
Crown to supply an army and to provide it. 7 Richard II., item 17, is 
a case of the custodian of a castle in Flanders who was put in arrest for 
surrendering the castle. There is no treason mentioned. One of them 
was released, and the other was committed to prison during the pleasure 
of the King. It certainly is not a proceeding on the statute. The 
earlier ones could not have been. Then item 24 is a case of surrendering 
a oastle. There is an allegation that one of them was encroaching the 
Royal power by issuing letters of safe conduct. There is oertainly no 
conviction of treason, and they are committed to prison until they pay 
a fine or ransom. With regard to those cases, my friend on the other 
side did not cite below any of the other cases there. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON I am interested in the John de Brittaine and 
Robert de Werkes cases. Those are cases that Lord Coke cites for his 
propositions. It cannot be fair for you to begin in the middle of the 
note. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I agree it is not fair to the commentator. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Lord Coke probably put his best oases first. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He might have done, but they have not been cited 
in argument. The Roll of Parliament, 20 Edward I., would not help us. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Have you not looked, or has not your junior 
looked at it? 
244 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. SULLIVAN It is entirely my own oversight if I have not had my 
attention directed to it ; I regret I have not been a little more industrious 
recently as I might have been. One case referred to is 20 Edward I., 
and the other is 32 Edward I. Then there is one in 8 Richard III., and 
one in 38 Edward III. Those might be referable. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON 33 Edward I. looks as if it were common 
law; it is before the statute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That would be before the statute, and so would be 
20 Edward I. Your lordship sees they are all Rolls of Parliament. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON They are none the worse for that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN They are not common law. The Courts of Parliament, 
my lord, were not common law. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE They are not proceedings of the common 
law Courts, but it does not follow that they did not administer the common 
law. 

Mr. SULLIVAN They may have administered the common law, but they 
were not bound or limited by the common law. I endeavoured to point 
out on the statute of Edward III. that it had to be administered by the 
common law. One of the consequences, I submit, if you are compelled to 
hold the statute dealt with offences committed by persons within the 
realm, ie that otherwise until 26 Henry VIII. he was not triable. The 
question of how it could be tried is dealt with on page 11, " That is to 
" say, out of the realm of England. But then it may be demanded, how 
" eihould at this time this foreign treason be tried? And some of our 
" books do answer, that the offender shall be indicted and tried in this 
" realm where his land lieth, and so it was adjudged in 2 Henry IV. But 
" now by the statute of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2 (which yet remains in 
" force), all offences made or declared, or hereafter made or declared 
" treasons, misprisions of treason, and concealments of treason, com- 
" mitted out of the realm of England, shall be inquired of, heard, and 
" determined, either in the King's Bench or before Commissioners in such 
"shire as shall be assigned by the King." Now, the Crown cited below 
for the proposition that the trial might be had where his land was, Fitz- 
herbert's Abridgement, 5 Richard II., Trial 54 " Quare impedit by 
" the King against one P., clerk, of a church in the bishopric of Durham, 
" and setting forth how the bishop, who is dead, presented B.N., his 
1 ' clerk, and the clerk died, and the chapel was collated upon a cardinal, 
" naming his name, and on account of heresy and schism the church was 
" void, the temporalities being in the King's hands, and therefore the 
" presentation belongs to the King." 

There is a long argument, in which there is in the course of the argu- 
ment an observation by counsel, which is the whole matter of the authority 
as far as can be ascertained from the perusal of it, that the trial might 
be held anywhere, especially where hisi land lies " I say with certainty 
" that the Court has cognisance of this plea, and prove it because the whole 
" Court Christian is one Court, and if a man is accused in the arches 
" here in this country of a certain crime for which he is liable to 
" deprivation, and then he appeals to the Court of Rome, and is deprived 
" over there, this deprivation is triable in the King's Court in the same 
" way as if he had been deprived in the arches, inasmuch as it is all one 

245 



Sir Roger Casement. 

HP. Sullivan 

' ' Court ; and if a man be an adherent to the King's enemies in France his 
' ' land is forfeitable, hie adherence will be tried where his land is, as has 
" often been done with the adherents of the King's enemies in Scotland; 
" and, sir, on my faith, if a man be a traitor his land is forfeitable, and 
" the lord has it by way of escheat; and it is reasonable, for if, when a 
"man is out of the faith of his Sovereign Lord the King, his land is 
" forfeitable, a multo fortiori when he is out of the faith of God." That 
is the authority cited against us below, and the authority for the proposi- 
tion in Coke, that he could be tried where his land was. When you come 
to deal with Hale, and especially with Hawkins, there was so much opinion 
as to how he should be tried that it is quite clear nobody knew how he 
could be tried. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Is that the authority referred to by Sir Edward 
Coke? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes ; 5 Richard III., Trial 54. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Before you go to Hale, there is a passage in 
Coke's Institutes, page 11, "It was resolved by all the judges of England 
' ' that for a treason done in Ireland the offender may be tried by the 
" statute of 35 Henry VIII. in England, because the words of the statute 
" be, all treasons committed out of the realm of England, and Ireland 
" is out of the realm of England." 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is after 35 Henry VIII. The question that Coke 
is putting is prior to 26 Henry VIII. How could you try any of these 
treasons ; what were you to do ? If the thing was a crime it ought to be 
triable, and apparently they are casting about to try and imagine how 
it could be tried ; but with all the opinions how it could be tried, so far 
as can be ascertained, I am not aware in that period that it ever in 
truth was tried, and when you get to Hawkins, Hawkins finds himself faced 
with a number of different methods in which, it is alleged, it might be 
tried ; and I submit the observation of Hawkins, so far from being an 
observation against me, is, in truth, a confession that nobody knew how 
you could try it until 25 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I thought it was the decision in Dyer that it 
could not be tried. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There was the opinion that it could not be tried. The 
opinion in Viner's Abridgement is that it could not be tried, and there it 
ended. It is 2 Dyer, 1316. In Coke, on piracy, he says this on page 
113, " Note, treason done out of the realm is declared to be treason by 
"the statute of 25 Edward III., and yet at the making of this Act of 
" 26 Henry VIII. it wanted trial (as by the preamble of this statute it 
" is rehearsed) at the common law." So apparently he expressed two 
different opinions in two different parts of the same volume. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Does he say it wanted trial? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, it wanted trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What do you take that to mean ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That there was no way of trying it. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Why should not it require to be tried? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The context is, I think, perfectly clear; as I say, it is 
on page 113, under the heading " On Piracy," " Note, treason done out 
"of the realm is declared to be treason by the statute of 25 Edward III., 
246 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



" and yet at the making of this Act of 26 Henry VIII. it wanted trial 
" (as by the preamble of this statute it is rehearsed) at the common law." 
That is to say, it lacked trial. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do you understand that to mean that it could 
not be tried at all? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That it could not be tried at common law. 
Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What does that mean ? It could not be tried at 
assizes? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It could not be tried by common law Courts; it could 
not be tried within the realm by any of the common law Courts when com- 
mitted outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Why could it not be tried by the Commission 
issued by the King? 

Mr. SULLIVAN They could go to such places! in Wales and Ireland in 
the King's dominions, not shiresi and counties places that had not the 
bodies of counties. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Why could not they go anywhere? 
Mr. SULLIVAN Because, your lordship sees, an act within the body of 
a county is got into the county ; that could only proceed on venue. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Once you have got a Commission to try 
it in a county you would have a venue. There would be no difficulty about 
venue then. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Before the matter came to trial there had to be the 
procedure anterior to trial by which the accused would be brought before 
the Court, and, as we know, the accused was brought before the Court 
by procedure, which necessitated his neighbours bringing him before the 
Court. Of course, there were Courts which sat by Commission within 
their own jurisdiction. A constable, I take it, could act with regard to 
a matter which was not within the body of the county; that is the case 
mentioned in Viner. If the matter was not within the cognisance of the 
body of the county, you might have tried him at civil law in certain 
instances, but at common law a thing had to be done in the body of a 
county. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Perhaps I ha.ve misunderstood your argument, 
but Lord Coke says, at page 11, in the passage I think you read, " And 
" some of our books do answer that the offender shall be indicted and 
" tried in this realm where his land lieth, and so it was adjudged in 2 
" Henry IV." Was it so adjudged according to the law in 2 Henry IV. 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN As far as can be ascertained, I am instructed that that 
turns out to be the Welsh case ; we have tried to trace it. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Lord Coke evidently thought he had authority 
for that proposition. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The reference, as far as we can discover, is in Henry 
IV., Coram Rege Roll. That is what I cited and handed to your lord- 
ship. I am told that that is so. If it is the Welsh case, it i rather hard 
to eee why it is cited in such company. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON They were going to try him when he stole 
sheep, but when they proceeded to try him nobody appeared to offer 
evidence, and so he was acquitted. 
Mr. SULLIVAN He was charged. 

247 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON He was charged with a number of things. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He was charged with a sufficient number of things to 
have given the Court some work to do. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON They could try him for stealing the sheep, 
but the prosecution did not call any evidence. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The object of the proceedings against him was different, 
and the sheep formed a very email portion. The peculiar thing is the 
admission that he was not triable. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Do you mean this admission in his Comment on 
Piracy? You refer to the inconsistency in Sir Edward Coke's comments 
on what he says in the part dealing with treason, and what he says when 
dealing with piracy. At page 113 he says, " And yet at the making of 
" this Act of 26 Henry VIII. it wanted trial (as by the preamble of this 
" statute it is rehearsed) at the common law." If you look at the preamble 
of the statute, all that the statute said was that the traitors at sea could 
not be tried ; it goes no further than that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He is obviously wrong. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN They could be tried before the admiral, who had 
exclusive jurisdiction, as I understand, over the high seas, and therefore 
they could not be tried at common law ; it is only by reason of the ex- 
clusive jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral as it existed over the high 
seas. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, the statute itself expressly provides it is only 
referring to offences that were triable by the admiral according to the 
course of the cavil law. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN That is traitors at sea, on the high seas. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, it is to remedy the course of procedure according 
to civil law. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I do not suppose Lord Coke's Commentary pro- 
posed to go beyond the preamble. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He refers to them as being traitors out of the realm. 
Will your lordships look at the strange references he gives! He refers to it 
as being treason done out of the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Yes, he does. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If you transpose the statute and refer to it as 26 
Henry VIII. it would be more accurate, but even in that event it would 
not be accurate either. Certainly the statute he refers to only refers to it 
by the preamble set out. He is inaccurate whichever way you read it ; it 
is by no means an accurate statement of the law, aa it stood, if I may 
say so. 

Then the next matter in the text-books is in Hale, with reference to 
the same. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Before you leave the Institutes, do you know the 
date of the Third Institutes? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That I do not know, but I came across a passage in 
Kelyng, which suggested that part of the Third Institutes was posthumous, 
and the treason portion is mentioned in Kelyng. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN If you do not know, do not trouble to find it now. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is mentioned in Kelyng, and especially with reference 
248 






Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



to treason it says his posthumous statements are not accurate, above all, 
with reference to his article on treason. 

Now, Hale deals with the matter at page 167 of the first volume 
" If an Englishman during the war between the King of England and 
"France be taken by the French, and there swear fealty to the King of 
" France, if it be done voluntarily, it is an adhering to the King's enemies ; 
" but if it be done for fear of his life, and that he returns, as soon as he 
" might, to the allegiance of the Crown of England, this is not an 
" adherence to the King's enemies within this Act. Clause 7, Edward 
" III., Part I., membrane 15." The references he deals with are 6 John, 
membrane 19, and 7 Edward III., Part I., membrane 15 and membrane 9. 
The dates of all those are prior to the statute. The first matter he refers 
to is 6 John, membrane 19, in reference to the confiscation of the lands of 
the barons in the time of John; they are all prior to the statute. So 
far as I can see there is nothing in that which involves the construction 
of what we are debating here, or the question of adherence without the 
realm by acts done completely without the realm; it is the forfeiture of 
the baron's land, who elected to serve the French King instead of John. 
Then 7 Edward III., membrane 9 and membrane 15. Those are two cases 
in which there is a direction to deal with land which has been forfeited on 
the ground, apparently, that the two parties had been charged with 
having joined the Soots, whatever that may be at that date, and they 
were to get back their lands on the ground that they had not joined the 
Scots. There is nothing to assist us in the smallest degree in that. 
Possibly the charge against them was levying war in the realm, or it 
may have been. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Against the Scots. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The other items are taken from the Rolls of Parlia- 
ment; they are impeachments, and he deals with them; they are inquiries 
into the loss of castles. Your lordships see the sentences are not sen- 
tences pronounced in respect of treason. Then at page 168, just above 
the shoulder note to page 169, " And note, though the charge were treason, 
" and possibly the proofs might probably amount to it, and Walsingham 
" tells us it was done by treason, yet the reason expressed in the judgment 
" against Weston only " then the judgment is set out " and the like 
" reason is expressed in the judgment against Gomeneys." Then, " The 
" truth is " and this, my lords, is most instructive " if it were de- 
"livered up by bribery or treachery, it might be treason, but if delivered 
" up upon cowardice or imprudence without any treachery, though it were 
" an offence against the laws of war, and the party subject to a sentence of 
"death by martial law, as it once happened in a case of the like nature 
" in the late times of trouble, yet it is not treason by the common law, 
' ' unless it was done by treachery ; but though this sentence was given in 
" terrorem, yet it was not executed ; it seemed to be a. kind of military 
"sentence though given in Parliament, like unto that of the Baron 
" Graystock, governor of Berwick." There is also another case which 
he cites, and then at the top of page 169, "This also seems rather a 
" sentence of council of war than a judgment of high treason ; and thus 
{t far touching the treason of adhering to the King's enemies within the 
" land and without. Touching the trial of foreign treason, viz., adhering 

249 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 



" to the King's enemies, as also for compassing the King's death without 
" the kingdom at this day, the statutes of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, hath 
"sufficiently provided for it." Then he cites Storey's case, "But at 
" common law he might have been indicted in any county of England, and 
" especially where the offender's lands lie, if he had any." That is 5 
Richard II., Trial 58, in Fitzherbert's Abridgement, the case I have cited 
to your lordships. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What do you say to this : this is Chief Justice 
Hale? 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON You say that Hale followed C'oke, and that 
Coke was wrong in his law, and you say that without looking at the 
authorities he cites. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Is not it rather a cavalier way of disposing of 
Coke and Sir Matthew Hale? 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It is not the way one has been accus- 
oomed to hear them dealt with. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING What do you say to Lord Coke and Sir Matthew 
Hale, and what do you say to Chief Justice Dallas? We have read the 
arguments below, and one sees how Lord Coke and Sir Matthew Hale were 
treated ; I was wondering if we ought to treat them in that way. There is 
a case of Burt v. Conant in the first volume of Broderip and Bingham's 
Reports, at page 570, where Chief Justice Dallas says this, " We are told 
" that we must look to the authorities, and find what we can in the books 
" upon the subject. Now, if the authority of Lord Hale and that of Mr. 
' ' Serjeant Hawkins are to be treated lightly, we may be without any 
authorities whatever. With respect to Lord Hale, it is needless to 
remind those whom I am now addressing of the general character for 
learning and legal knowledge of that person, of whom it was said that 
what was not known by him wasi not known by any other person who 
preceded or followed him, and that what he knew he knew better than 
any other person who preceded or followed him. With respect to Mr. 
Serjeant Hawkins, we know his authority. These are books which are 
in the hand and head of every lawyer, and constantly referred to on 
" every occasion of this sort. I must, therefore, look to these books; 
" and I slhall proceed to examine the exposition given by text writers of 
"the words of those statutes and the commission of the peace." Chief 
Justice Dallas took a rather different view of Sir Matthew Hale and Serjeant 
Hawkins from that which you ask this Court to take. 

Mr. SULLIVAN My lord, it is not the first time that a Court has been 
asked to differ from an opinion expressed by Coke. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE There have been shoals of law reformers 
since that day, who have all had these authorities before them, and they 
have not reformed the law in the way one imagines they would have done if 
they had not treated these sta.tem.ents as good law. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Probably. My lord, what I intend to point out to 
the Court is this, that when you are dealing with a statute, that is the 
authority; the statute is there itself, and it is its own prime expositor. 
Lord Coke was not a contemporary with the statute, and his speculative 
opinion, if it turns out to be a speculative opinion, cannot possibly con- 
trol the construction of a statute, which as far aa research can go, until 
250 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



the year 1903, was never construed, after argument, by judgment. I 
agree that if you oould find that the law has been acted on in a certain 
way for a great number of years, that would influence you in acting in 
consonance with the views of great text writers, that would influence a 
Court to a very great degree; but if the law as pronounced by them 
has not been acted on, if it has not come in question to be acted on, 
if the matter has not arisen, the observations even of great lawyers like 
Coke and Hale on the construction of a statute which has not come before 
a bench to be canvassed and debated, I submit, is of far less authority than 
their opinions upon matters of other kindsi. Sir Matthew Hale purports 
to give authority for his propositions. One is, of course, conscious of 
the absurdity of the situation of declaring that there was a crime of which 
no Court oould inform itself; the thing is contradictory. A crime that 
cannot be judicially pronounced to be a crime isi not a legal offence of any 
kind, and accordingly both Coke and Hale are found facing what is clearly 
a difficulty in their own minds. If this were so, and there was a crime 
committed entirely outside of the King's dominions and outside of the 
realm, how did it come to be a crime, how was it pronounced to be a crime, 
for without pronouncement it could not be a crime? They answer it by 
saying the only answer we can find to it is that he might have been 
indicted in any county of England, especially where the offender owned 
land, if he had any, and there is the reference to 5 Richard II., Trial 54, 
which when we refer to it is the observation of counsel arguing in a case 
where the matter does not arise. If that is the best foundation that can 
be found for getting over what is obviously to the mind of every person 
a tremendous difficulty in extending the statute outside of the realm, and 
if you go to that authority on which they express that opinion, and you 
find that the authority carries you very little distance, if any, in that 
direction, and it is simply the observation of counsel arguing another case 
in which the matter does not arise, and is not applicable, that becomes the 
sole authority, because they cite it as being the authority themselves for 
a proposition, which I submit is contrary to the long string of statutes 
which I have cited to your lordship. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Does Sir Matthew Hale deal with the case in Dyer, 
at page 31&, at all? I think Lord Coke does cite that as contrary to hie 
view. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He cites it. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Perhaps you will deal with that later on. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am going to cite that later on. The citation from 
Dyer is not the same one ; that is Storey's case. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN That was foreign treason, compassing the King's 
death. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, and, secondly, as your lordship sees from the 
date, it was clearly within the statutes then current. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Either on the footing that the Act of Edward III. 
made it treason, because it did not limit it to being within the realm, or 
on the footing of 26 Henry VIII. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes; in any event, it was clearly not demurrable in 
13 Elizabeth. So far from being an authority against me, I submit the 
passage in 2 Hawkins, at page 306, is a strong authority in my favour 

251 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 






" It seems to have been a great doubt before the making of the statute 
35 Henry, chapter 2, in what manner and in what place high treason done 
" out of the realm is to be tried. For some seem to have holden that 
"it was triable only upon an appeal before the constable and marshal." 
There ia the first alternative, and it negatives common law because the 
constable and marshal were not common law " Others, that it might be 
"tried upon an indictment, laying the offence in any county .where the 
" King pleased; and others, that it was triable by way of indictment in 
" that county only wherein the offender had lands." There are his 
authorities, and if one is right the other two are wrong; they are all 
brigaded to the same extent. " But, surely/' says the commentator, " it 
" cannot reasonably be doubted but that it was triable some way or other ; 
" for it cannot be imagined that an offence of such dangerous consequence, 
" and expressly within the purview of 25 Edward III., should be wholly 
" dispunishable, as it must have been if it were no way triable." That 
is looking at the matter through the wrong end of the telescope, with all 
respect. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON What is the authority which Serjeant Hawkins 
gives for the country? There is the Third Institute, which I know. What 
is the other authority before that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN We have consulted the highest authority in historical 
law, and we are not able to answer. Professor Holdsworth was unable 
to translate it, we were told. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Have you tried the librarian of the Bar Library? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I do not know if my friend, the Attorney-General, 
knows it. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL No. 

Mr. SULLIVAN At least, I am sinning in goodly company. With all 
respect to Hawkins, he looks at the matter from the wrong end. He 
says, this being a crime, surely it must be punishable. A consideration 
of the development of the laws of crime will show that it was by reason of 
being punishable a thing was a crime, and it was by reason of the legal 
consequence operating through the Courts of justice that put acts into 
categories of crime and felonies and treasons. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE; Is that correct? Do you say it was a 
crime because it was punishable? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That, I submit, is the only test known to the law. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE I should have thought it was exactly 
the converse that it was only punishable because it was a crime. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He assumes it was a crime, and then says it would be 
a dreadful thing if it were not punishable. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING He does not say it would be a dreadful thing. 
He says various lawyers have disputed, as they will, technically : here is 
a man guilty of a crime, how are you going to try him? Then Hawkins 
says these people have disputed, but surely he must be triable one way or 
another, and why decide amongst these people? It may be you could 
try in more than one of the ways. The King could certainly issue a 
special Commission to try him. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT The words are " expressly within the purview of 
" 25 Edward III." That is clearly the strongest expression of opinion 
252 



Appeal Proceedings . 



Mr. Sullivan 

that the offence is provided for by 25 Edward III. Supposing by some mis- 
chance it was not triable after the passing of that Act until the statute of 
Henry VIII. it would become triable then. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit that you could only arrive at that conclusion 
in this way. He says, " Surely it cannot be imagined that an offence 
"of such dangerous consequence and expressly within the purview of 25 
" Edward III. should be wholly dispunishable 1 " I submit the answer is, 
if it was expressly within 25 Edward III., there would not be any doubt 
about how it was tried. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE The statute does not give any par- 
ticular form of trial. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Because I submit it did not create the offence. I 
have pointed out when the offence is clearly created by statute outside the 
realm the statute always did provide a method of trial for it. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE; The statute is the statute treating of 
all these treasons; it does not give any form of trial for either. Your 
argument, if it destroys the one on that ground, would destroy them all, 
and there would be no treason left. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Except what was committed within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It would not leave that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Why? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Anything committed within the body of a county, 
within the realm, would be tried according to tlhe law of the realm by the 
common law Courts. My argument does not seek for a moment to doubt 
that. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE The statute does not say that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There was no necessity for saying anything at all about 
trial as long as it did net purport to legislate outside the King's realm 
or bodies of his counties. It need not say anything ; the statute operates 
automatically, and the judicial system was in itself competent to deal 
with it as long as you kept the statute within the body of the judicial 
system. The statute only becomes unworkable by a construction which 
causes it to create an offence without the limit of the judicial machinery 
to try it. That is why I submit your lordship would not so construe it. 
Then your lordships would find this enormous period covered by many 
statutes relating to treasons meanwhile, but you find this enormous period 
of legal history in which there was an offence in the air, something like a 
crime that no Court could take cognisance of. How could there be a 
crime? How could any man be said to be guilty in accordance with the 
constitutional doctrine of the presumption of innocence until conviction, 
according to the process of law? If you could not convict a man of being 
a criminal he was 1 not a criminal ; the crime did not exist. They are all 
pressed with this, and Hawkins shows there is, in truth, no solution to 
this obstacle that I pointed out at the outset, of venue in connection with 
treason. Some say that you could only try it by the marshal, others that 
it could be tried on an indictment laying an offence without the King's 
peace. There is no precedent till you get the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE I understand you to admit it would 
be triable by the marshal, do you? How did it become so triable? 



Sir Roger Casement 



Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. SULLIVAN By civil law. The statute of 13 Richard II. was 
limiting the marshal, and not extending him. Your lordships will find by 
13 Richard II., chapter 2, and 1 Henry IV., chapter 14, the marshal was 
not trying anything that could be triable by the common law. According 
to Viner, because a matter was not triable by the common law, there being 
an appeal, the marshal had cognisance of it. Viner was obviously re- 
ferring to the statute which forbade the marshal to take cognisance of 
anything that could be tried by the common law. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN What statute is that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is 13 Richard II., chapter 2. That is the one 
limiting the authority. Tour lordship remembers 1 in the reign of Richard 
II. there was a conflict both with the admiral and with the marshal with 
regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in places within the bodies of counties. 
Up to then there was a disputed jurisdiction, and then 13 Richard II., 
chapter 2, as your lordships remember, confined the marshal, and another 
statute confined the admiral, to the trial of such offences as the common 
law had not cognisance of. There were complaints of encroachment of 
oases within the cognisance of the common law, and then the statute is 
passed to declare in this Parliament by the advice and assent, and so 
forth, the power and jurisdiction of the constable is as follows: " To the 
"constable it pertaineth to have cognisance of contracts touching deeds 
" of arms and of war out of the realm, and also of things that touch, war 
"within the realm, which cannot be determined or discussed by the 
" common law, with other usages and customs to the same matters per- 
" taming Which other constables heretofore have duly and reasonably used 
"in their time; joining to the same, that every plaintiff shall declare 
" plainly hisi matter in his petition, before that any man be sent for to 
"answer thereunto. And if any will complain, that any plea be com- 
" menced before the constable and marshal, that might be tried by the 
" common law " then there is the remedy of it. 

Then 1 Henry IV., chapter 14, repeats the declaration that matters 
which are triable at common law shall not be called in question, and it 
says, " That all the appeals to be made of things done within the realm 
" shall be tried and determined by the good laws of the realm, made and 
" used in the time of the King's noble progenitors ; and that all the appeals 
"to be made of things done out of the realm shall be tried and determined 
" before the constable and marshal of England for the time being." 
Apparently that statute of Henry IV., as long as it stood, and the statute 
of Richard II. gave jurisdiction to the constable and marshal, provided 
that the matter that they inquired into was outside the cognisance of the 
common law, and in light of that, is not the observation of Hawkins of 
great weight, that the first alternative as to how you are to deal with the 
last form of treason is to be by the constable and marshal? 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Have you looked at the work by Mr. Ferdinand 
Pulton, a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, who wrote a treatise very carefully 
collected, as he says, " out of the reports of the common laws of this 
" realm, and of the statutes 1 in force, and out of the painful works of the 
" Reverend Judges Sir Anthonie Fitzherbert, Sir Robert Brooke, Sir 
" William Stanford, Sir James Dyer, Sir Edward Coke, knights, and other 
254 



Appeal Proceedings . 



Mr. Sullivan 



" learned writers of our laws/' and so on? The copy I am reading from 
is dated 1609. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That was the first edition. 
Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Have you seen it? 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Have you Been it, Mr. Sullivan? 
Mr. SULLIVAN No. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING I am reading from the folio between pages 110 
and 111, section 4 " And because by the said statute of 25 Edward III. 
' it is declared to be high treason to levy war against the King in his 
' realm, or to be adherent to his enemies, aiding them in his realm, or 
1 elsewhere ; therefore if a subject born of the realm being beyond the 
' seas doth practice with a prince or governor of another country to invade 
' this realm with great power, and do declare where, how, and by what 
' means the invasion may best be made, it is high treason ; for an 
1 invasion with great power cannot be, but of likelihood it will tend to 
' the destruction or great peril of the King and hurt to the realm ; and, 
' moreover, the said offender hath manifested himself to be adherent to 
' the King's enemy and to aid him with his counsel, though not in the 
' realm, yet elsewhere, and this offence shall be tried in the King's Bench, 
' or elsewhere, before such Commissioners, and in such county, as the 
' King by Commission shall appoint according to the statute of 35 Henry 
' VIII." 

Mr. SULLIVAN There is no doubt about that being the law at that date. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Is not that exactly this case ? A person being 

subject to the King, adheres outside the realm to a foreign prince. Pulton 

says that can be tried in the King's Bench, or elsewhere, as the King may 

direct. 

Mr. SULLIVAN According to statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING We are after the statute ; we are subsequent to 
the statute. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The question is, what statute? 
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL He says Edward III. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING I will read it again. He is dealing with the 
statute. He begins at section 3 " The aforesaid statute of 25 Edward III. 
" doth confirm it to be high treason for any person to compass or imagine 
" the death of our Sovereign Lord the King," and so on. " And because 
" by the said statute of 25 Edward III. it is declared to be high treason 
" to levy war against the King in his realm, or to be adherent to his 
' l enemies, aiding them in his realm, or elsewhere ; therefore, if a subject 
"born of the realm being beyond the seas doth practice with a prince or 
" governor of another country to invade this realm with great power." 
Then it proceeds as I have read. Then he puts what is, upon the facts, 
exactly the case we are arguing to-day. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I take it he cannot cite any case. 
Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN That seems 1 to be based upon Storey's case of 
compassing. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I thought it probably was, because I noticed the 

255 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

word about " practising," which is the word used in Storeys case. He 
does go on to say it is adhering. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He goes on to say so. I do not know whether he 
quotes any case, or gives any text, more than we have been able to find 
up to the present. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE As I understand you, the offence of 
compassing does- not exist out of the realm; no punishment, no crime. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It might have been so up to 26 Henry VIII. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE That does not create treason; it only 
says that treason may be tried in a particular way. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is 35 Henry VIII. 26 Henry VIII., I point out, 

does create treason, and makes acta outside the realm treason that are 

treason within the realm, which is extending Edward III. to the world. 

26 Henry VIII. is the most important of all. 35 Henry VIII. was passed 

in order to clear up doubts arising upon the draughtsmanship and the 

provision of the special tribunal that was provided by 26 Henry VIII. to 

try these new treasons outside of the realm. I do submit that when you 

come to treason outside of the realm you find treason outside of the realm 

begins in the Reports later than 26 Henry VIII., " That if any of the 

1 King's subjects, denizens, or other do commit or practice out of the 

( limits of this realm, in any outward parties, any such offences, which 

' by this Act are made, or heretofore have been made, treason, that then 

' such treasons, whatsoever they be, or wheresoever they shall happen to 

' be done or committed, shall be inquired/ 5 and then it provides trial; 

but the Act of 26 Henry VIII. did create treasons outside the realm, and 

accordingly, in 1609 and after that, you find in the Reports cases cropping 

up of allegations of treason outside the realm, and as late as 1709, one 

hundred years later than the opinions stated, you find Parliament treating by 

the revision of the judges the statutes and parts of statutes relating to 

treason and there is 26 Henry VIII. as being then in force. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE. That, you say, has been repealed? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, but it refers to the period of the cases cited, and 
it was current as governing the realm and governing everybody within or 
without the realm during all the period of the cases cited since that date. 
They repeal it after the Treason Felony Act had been passed. I do submit 
that 26 Henry VIII. is the most important statute upon this, because I 
think you find it is after 26 Henry VIII. that you see Storey's case and the 
other cases of foreign treason. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN After 26 Henry VIII., according to you, was 
adhering to the King's enemies beyond the realm treason or not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was arguable, at all events, that it was, although I 
submit that owing to the limitation of the statute of Edward III. itself it 
would be contradicting the statute to extend it beyond it, but compassing 
was certainly beyond. I submit that the statute was extending com- 
passing. Then you had meanwhile, as your lordships know, in the history 
of the reign of Henry VIII. a whole lot of fancy treasons; in fact, one had 
to keep one's eyes on the Statute Book, because one's opinions, lawful 
to-day, might forfeit one's life to-morrow. I think 26 Henry VIII. is 
the most important of all the statutes. It certainly extended the law of 
treason outside the realm to quite a lot of new treasons within and without 
the realm for the first time, and it provided the trial. 
256 






Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I do not know why you say it was the important 
Act, because the Act of 5 & 6 Edward VI., chapter 2, section 6, repeats 
exactly the same language; it has not been repealed, and is now in force. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is true. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN It is set out in Archbold, at page 1033. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The significant thing is, I think, the compassing cases 
after 26 Henry VIII. I have gone through all those reported in the State 
Trials, and two other reports, and collected them, and I am not aware of 
anything before 26 Henry VIII., in which you find cropping up the allega- 
tion outside the realm. It is significant, I think, that in the State Trials, 
at all events, I may be corrected about it, but I think the foreign treasons 
as reported in the Eeportsi commence subsequent to 26 Henry VIII., at all 
events, I say so until 1903. There is a reported case of adhering, and 
no matter, my lord, was brought forward in argument for judicial decision 
involving the question, and therefore I submit 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE. That is only because it did not arise. 
There is no ground for supposing a case arose and was passed over. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There is only one case, The King v. Cundell in the 
Newgate Calendar. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE That was cited in the Court below. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. That is the only case in which apparently the 
question might have arisen. It does not appear that any question did 
arise. Cundell had been in His Majesty's service, and he had, in fact, 
been guilty of treason under the second Act of Anne not the second Mutiny 
Act, but the second Military Act passed in the reign of Anne. There 
does not appear to have been any doubt raised until The King v. Lynch. 
No precedent can be found of judicial opinion being called in to> consider the 
matter, as affecting the lives 1 or liberties) of any of His Majesty's subjects. 
However the matter may have been canvassed in the abstract, as far as 
I know, until the case of The King v. Lynch judicial authority had never 
been exercised in manner of argument upon this clause of the statute with 
which I am afraid I am wearying your lordships a good deal longer than 
I desire to do. 

Now, my lord, with reference to the observation in Hawkins, to which 
I have called your lordships' attention, will your lordships look at 2 Dyer, 
page 131&. It is not a judicial decision. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I thought it was under the procedure under which, 
before the creation of the Court for the consideration of Crown cases re- 
served, "criminal cases were discussed by the Serjeants of Serjeants' Inn. It 
is a very old practice. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is a very old practice, and it had the authority of 
judgment. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN It was the only way of dealing with it. Sir 
James Dyer states that it was argued by counsel before them ; sometimes 
they were. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The history is in Mr. Holdsworth's work, and it is very 
interesting. It does not appear from the report in Dyer to have arisen at 
a net point, but all such points that arose in the Court it was undoubtedly 
the habit to have debated at Serjeants' Inn in the manner set out in this 
particular case, and in all probability, as your lordship says, it may be a 
judicial decision of a case discussed in that way. 

s 257 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Sir Jaines Dyer was King's serjeant at that time, 
was he not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN He was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas after- 
wards ; I do not know if he was King's serjeant ; that would add authority 
to it. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING If he was a serjeant at all, that would be a 
good deal. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Of that I know nothing, but I have great respect for the 
King's Serjeants. The King's serjeant, as we know, until the nine- 
teenth century, led the Attorney-General until the unfortunate contre- 
temps arose in which he accepted a minor position to the Attorney- 
General, and allowed himself to be led in Court. The report is in Trinity 
Term, 2 & 3 Philip and Mary, and it is certainly a practical contradiction 
of the suggestion of Coke, Hawkins, and Hale, because there was no doubt 
a question about what the opinion of the judges then moved was. ' ' It was 
"moved for a doubt among the judges and King's serjeants, whether if 
" treason be committed in France, or anywhere out of the realm, it be 
" inquirable and triable by law at this day, by the statute of 35 Henry 
"VIII., chapter 2, because in the statute of 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, 
" chapter 10, it is enacted, that all trials hereafter to be had, awarded, 
" or made for any treason, shall be had and used only according to the 
" due order and course of the common laws of this realm, and not other- 
" wise." That emphasises what I pointed out this morning, and that 
under 26 Henry VIII. and 35 Henry VIII., although you had proceedings, 
you had not, till the Court of the King's Bench came in, common law 
" And it seems that notwithstanding this, the statute 35 Henry VIII., 
" chapter 2, is in force, because no offence of treasons committed out of 
" the realm was triable here by the course of the common law, therefore 
" this statute enlarges the power and authority of the trials of tlie realm 
" in this point." 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Is the word " county " or " country " ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN " County " is printed. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON What is a foreign county ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think it is right, my lord; this was said just about 
the time of the statute, though I did not quote the statute with regard to 
foreign pleas. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKTN I think it was called a foreign county if laid in 
the wrong county. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The foregn plea when it arose was in a county foreign 
to that in which it was presented; the word " county " is probably right; 
" but for treason committed in a foreign county and triable in the King's 
" Bench or in any county of the pleasure of the King, by statute 33 Henry 
" VIII., chapter 23, it seems otherwise." That is 33 Henry VIII., chapter 
23. Strange to say, that statute is not printed in the 1709 collection, but I 
have a note of it. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON On the face of it it had nothing to do with 
treason. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It had something to do with treason, and if your 
lordships will give me a moment I will tell you exactly what it was. It 
was urged that great inconvenience had arisen from having to remand 
258 



Appeal Proceedings . 



Mr. Sullivan 



the accused for trial in the county where the treason was committed as the 
law then stood, and persons examined before the council or vehemently 
suspected of treason would be tried at the Commission of oyer and terminer 
within the shire, and it was said that the Commissioners should have 
power and authority to inquire, hear, and determine such treasons, and 
so on, within the shire and premises limited by their Commission or without 
wherever such offence was committed. I have a note of it, if your lord- 
ship will allow me to refer to it. I have it in my list of statutes creating 
offences, but somehow I must have slipped over it. It did deal with 
treasons. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Do you say " or without " refer to 26 Henry? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON And nothing else? 

Mr. SULLIVAN As a matter of fact, the enactment is repugnant to 
the recital, because the offence they purport to deal with is by persons who 
were sometimes examined before the council, and sometimes information 
was taken, and then they had to be remanded for trial to the county in 
which it was alleged the offence took place. The result was they might 
have waited trial under a Commission of oyer and terminer for an inter- 
minable length of time, and the statute purports to remedy that by enabling 
them to be tried in a venue directed by the King's Commissioner instead 
of going to a true venue. Primarily for treason committed within the 
realm the consequence was they had to be remitted for trial to the place 
where the treason was committed. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT After this case in Dyer all the learned judges 
assumed that felony could be created without and tried within this 
country, otherwise they were considering a point that never could arise 
at all. 

Mr. SULLIVAN After the opinion given, yes, certainly. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT At the time the opinion was given they must have 
assumed that for a treason committed in France the person could be 
prosecuted in this country; otherwise it was arguing a case that never 
could arise at all. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is, of course, accurate ; they were doubting it. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Supposing what you are saying is right, that they 
had not in contemplation these treasons referred to in 35 Edward III. ; is 
that your argument 1 

Mr. SULLIVAN I cite the case as the considered opinion, that prior to 
the Act of 35 Henry VIII., the act would, if done within the realm, have 
been treason in that sense. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Suppose we were in your favour upon that, I think 
it ia an authority quite against you, upon the point whether what is a 
treason is what can be charged. It is clearly against you on that point. 
Here are all these learned judges giving their opinion and considering a 
point that never could arise at all. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I am afraid I have misconveyed myself. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING We will resume this case to-morrow morning. 

Adjourned till to-morrow morning at 10.15 a.m. 

259 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Second Day Tuesday, 18th July, 1916. 

Mr. SULLIVAN My lords, on two occasions yesterday, 1 find, on 
referring to my report, I was to some extent at cross purposes with the 
Court. I find, my lords, at a time when I was discussing acts committed 
within the realm that the members of the Court were putting to me 
questions which were directed to the administration of law within the King's 
dominions generally, and I do not think that I made myself as clear as 
I would wish as to the attitude of my argument towards the administration 
of the law without the realm but still within the King's dominions. There 
was, of course, a great distinction between the realm and the dominions. 
Within the realm you had the common law established within the ancient 
realm of England, and the realm was added to by statute from time to 
time; it had absorbed portions of Scotland before eventually it came in 
altogether; Ireland was added by statute, Wales was added by statute, 
and France nominally remained the King's dominions. For some time 
after all jurisdiction in France disappeared, but France was the King's 
realm. Now, my argument does not deny that within the King's 
dominions the King;'s law ran, and it does not deny in the smallest degree 
that Parliament might legislate for the, King's dominions, and that the 
legislation of Parliament would be administered in the King's dominions, 
although they might be outside the King's realm of England, which was 
a very much more circumscribed geographical locality. In the dominions, 
such as in Gascony, in Ireland, in Wales, in Scotland, there was no common 
law ; the King's law was administered in the dominions by Commissioners 
administering the law ad hoc as their Commission required, but my argu- 
ment with regard to the statute of Edward III., with the limitation of 
"within the realm," and two of its matters, did not draw as clear a 
distinction as I would like between what was within the realm and what 
would be without the realm and still be an offence under the statute, 
being committed within the King's dominions and triable by the King's 
law as administered in his dominions outside the realm. There is no 
doubt that with regard to a number of the matters mentioned in the statute 
of Edward III., compassing, for instance the other matters I need not 
mention in the next two paragraphs they were all matters which could 
be committed as crimes in any part of the King's dominions, and were 
themselves vicious and treasonable per se ; but with regard to two of the 
matters that are mentioned in the statute of Edward III., I submit they 
only acquired their treasonable character if they were committed within a 
particular part of the King's dominions, namely, within the King's realm, 
and their viciousness and criminality depended upon the personality who 
committed them dwelling within the King's realm, within the King's peace, 
and under his protection. For that reason those two matters, which were 
so circumscribed on the construction of the statute for which we contend, 
and being done only in a particular place, where incapable of extension 
by the construction of the statute of 26 Henry VIII. or of 5 & 6 
Edward ; but the other matters were clearly crimes wherever they were com- 
mitted within the King's dominions, and were capable of being tried by the 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



law as administered in the King's dominions, the law applicable thereto. 
Reference was also made to Commissions issuing within the realm of England 
to try crimes. As we all know, the issue of those Commissions was the 
subject of controversy and protest from Parliament for very many years; 
they did not issue under the common law. That is the ground of the 
Parliamentary protest, that the Commissions issued proceeded according to 
civil law, and not according to common law, and that was the very 
ground of the protest of Parliament against the issue of Commissions. 
Finally, the principal Commissions being issued were Commissions to the 
marshals, which were eventually abolished by the Petition of Right, and 
the question was as to the right to issue these Commissions in times of 
peace, trying people according to martial law. 

There is another matter I made a mistake in in replying to one 
of your lordships. I did not notice with regard to 5 & 6 Edward VI., 
chapter 11, that one of your lordships asked me the result of 
the passing of the Act of 1 Mary. I find in the little 
volume of the statutes I ha,ve been quoting from all the time, the 
volume subscribed by the judges, that the memorandum on that statute 
of 5 & 6 Edward VI. is as follows : " Memorandum. All the particular 
" treasons made treason by this Act and which were not treason by the 
" statute of 25 Edward III. are expired or repealed by the statute of 
" 1 Mary, chapter 1." I may also state comment was made on the veri- 
fication of the authorities referred to in Coke by my colleagues, who have 
done all that I asked of them, and done it most loyally and well ; every 
single reference has been verified, and we have here a memorandum 
showing all these reference to which attention was called yesterday. De 
Brittaine's case was a case particularly mentioned. That was a case of 
what Maitland calls the amphibious baron, for it was a question with 
regard to the title to land in England that was alleged to have been for- 
feited (your lordship sees by the date it was anterior to the statute) by the 
fact that the owner, like a, great number of the barons, had also French 
land, and in respect of his French land he seems to have been doing suit 
and service to the King of France : exactly the position contemplated by 
Bracton, where, in respect of his French lands, he had to furnish suit and 
service to the King of France at times when he was at war with the King 
of England, and when he had to furnish suit and service to the King of 
England in respect of his English land. The question arose whether the 
deceased man had been assisting the King of France or rendering service 
in respect of lands at Rouen. As far as I can gather from the record, it 
is anterior to the statute, and it illustrates exactly the state of affairs 
that I suggest is the reason of the special limitation in adherence within 
the realm of England, because the legislators were, to a very large extent, 
men who owned French land, and in respect of their French land had to 
do suit and service in France, and they did not want to be put to their 
election which of their estates they would give up, because they had a 
tendency to hold on to both of the lands if they could. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON I still have some curiosity; what happened 
to it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The man was dead at the time of the investigation. 
The question was whether there was dower still claimable out of the 

261 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

lands ; it is a petition in Parliament. I am wrong ; the dower case was 
the next one in the note. The facts are as I have stated. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING This is the first case that Coke cites as his 
authority. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN It is a case of land forfeited for adhering to the 
Soots. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The French, my lord. I make it out to be in respect 
of land in Rouen. The question arose in the case of John de Brittaine, 
that the manors mentioned ought to be declared his inheritance, and 
it is answered that the manors did rightly belong at some time to 
some person whose name I do not give, who held the manor, and that 
then he, the said viscount, whoever he was, adhered to the part of the 
King of France contrary to his allegiance to Henry. He was the Viscount 
of Rouen, apparently, as far as I can make out from the translation. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING But the viscount then was not a mere honorary 
title as it is to-day; it meant that he had a military duty to discharge 
in Rouen. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He had, my lord, of course, at that date. He wafl 
the Viscount of Rouen, and adhered to the part of the King of France 
contrary to his allegiance to Henry III., on which account his property 
was forfeited to the King; that is to say, there was a claim that all his 
land on both sides of the Channel had been forfeited to the King, as far as 
I can make out from the record. Then the allegation that the claimant's 
father had taken possession of the land was not to oust the King's claim. 
As a matter of fact the King was not a party to the proceedings, and the 
question was rather challenging his title on the part of some person who 
claimed from a prior assignment, before the forfeiture alleged. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON I follow that he was dead ; but what happened 
to the estate? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The lands were forfeited. 

Mr. JUSTICE, SCRUTTON Because of his adhering to the King of France 
out of the realm? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN The land had been forfeited, and this was a 
petition by a. descendant to say they inherited. 

Mr. SULLIVAN This was a petition of a descendant of a man who had 
entered, and who apparently had been ousted ; he claimed owing to the 
entry. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN He did not claim it under the forfeiture. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN He claimed against the forfeiture. 

Mr. SULLIVAN He claimed against the forfeiture in respect of an 
entry of a predecessor who had been ousted. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE How was it held? 

Mr. SULLIVAN It was held that the lands had been forfeited. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It was held against his claim? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord. The date is most important. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It is 1292. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The fate of the viscount illustrates exactly the state of 
affairs which would be most terrifying to a very large number of His 
262 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr*. Sullivan 



Majesty's legislators, namely, that in respect of an act done at Rouen 
his lands at Rouen, and in England too, had all been forfeited to the King 
of England. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING At that time who was the King of England? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Henry III. at the time of the forfeiture. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Edward I. at the time of the hearing. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is later when the allegation was made ; at the time 
of Henry III. the forfeiture had taken place. The matter arises, I think, 
a generation afterwards, because it is a petition to Parliament to be 
reinstated in that from which his predecessor had been ousted. Then, 
my lords, the next authority I propose to deal with is The King v. Plait. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN The next case is 33 Edward I. ; that is, adhering 
to the Scots. 

Mr. SULLIVAN We have all these cases. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is Robert de Ross. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In that case it was a case of bail, and it does not 
appear to me that the statute 33 Edward I. is in point. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Surely the Ross case is a case of a claim to land, 
and the lands had been forfeited, because it says he died in the allegiance 
of the Scots, and had a right to have adhered to them. I had a look 
at the Roll last night. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I think we are dealing with a later case, 33 Edward I. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN The case of Robert de Ross. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " Memorandum. That the King caused to be liberated 
" the body of Ralph " 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN That is not the right reference. There are 
several things that might come under 6 ; there are several references under 
33 Edward I. It is almost the last entry under the date. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Then, my lord, again I am at fault. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN Last night I had an opportunity of seeing the 
Parliament Roll, and I looked it up. It is exactly the same case as that 
where the lands had been forfeited ; the predecessor of the claimant had hie 
land forfeited because he had adhered to the part of the Scots, I think 
it is said. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It was found by the King in Council that 
Robert de Ross, for a long time before the last war in Scotland, against 
his duty had removed himself from the King and adhered to the part of 
the Scots who were at that time enemies and rebels against the King, 
and never again in his lifetime did he return into the peace of his King, 
but remained with hia enemy. The Council refused the prayer of the 
petitioner, which asked to be restored to the lands of Robert under a 
proclamation which had been made saving the rights of euch persons in 
Scotland who came into the King's peace after the war. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN That looks like a case of adhering in Scotland. 
Mr. SULLIVAN Adhering to the rebel Scots ; it was in Scotland in the 
King's dominions. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN But it was out of the realm. 
Mr. SULLIVAN It was out of the realm, certainly, of England, 
was pointing out that France, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland appeared at 
that period to have been all in the same dominion ; they were in the King's 

263 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



dominion, but not within the King's realm of England. A^ I say, you 
could legislate for them, and the King's law was law within them, but they 
were not part of the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE SCRUTTON Perhaps there is a little more to be said for 
Lord Coke than you thought ; you will not be quite so severe on him when 
you next come to address us about him, will you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I do not think that this case in any way bears out 
the proposition that the statute of Edward III. could be applied outside 
the realm by any case that was triable at common law. What I am 
pointing out to your lordships is that, whereas the law would run in the 
King's dominions, it would not be administrable by common law, it would 
be administered as the law was administered in the King's dominions; 
that was by Commission which would sit under civil law. This was all 
prior to the statute, which I submit was pasi&ed in order to relieve both the 
southern Scotsman, whose estates came into England, and the southern 
barons, whose estates were in England and France. With regard to these 
petitions in Parliament, they were not cases at common law in any respect, 
and the case in 8 Edward III., the Year Book, case 20, is a case of 
adhering to the Scots ; but unless again he adhered to the Scots by march- 
ing into Northumberland, with his other acts., he was not only within the 
King's dominions at all times, but also was actually within the King's 
realm. There is a matter about the custom of Normandy, case 73, of the 
treason to the Duke ; I have not looked through that, but I do not think 
it adds anything to the foundation of my argument. The cases prior to 
the statute again, you see, are all within the King's dominion ; they are 
all triable by the King in some manner of form, but within the realm; 
they could not have been tried at common law. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE What law were they tried by? 

Mr. SULLIVAN By Commission, which proceeded according to civil 
law. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE What is the authority for saying that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN The petition to Parliament and the protests of Parlia- 
with regard to the special Commission. They could not have a common 
law ; they could not ha,ve the common law of the realm. They had their 
law. When we are speaking of the common law we are speaking of the 
common law of the realm at this period of the development. 

Now, my lords, I will go to the case of The King v. Platt, in 
1 Leach's Crown Cases at Page 157. There was an application for 
habeas corpus, as your lordships are aware, because Platt was committed 
for high treason committed at Savannah, Georgia. The warrant was 
simply high treason. There was an application for the discharge of the 
prisoner under the Habeas Corpus Act made to the Court at the Old 
Bailey, and an objection was taken by the Attorney-General that the 
Court had no power to try the prisoner, as he could only be tried by the 
King's Bench under 35 Henry VIII., because he said the treason was com- 
mitted out of the realm. It was, of course, committed within the 
King's dominions ; it was committed at Georgia. It was committed out 
of the realm, and the point taken is that the Court cannot entertain the 
application for habeas corpus, because the Court has no seisin of the case, 
the treason being committed in Georgia, and this point is upheld ; but the 
264 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



judgment with reference to the matter we are dealing with, or rather the 
dictum, is as follows : " North America, is part of one of the four divisions 
" of the world, and that it is without the four seas of Great Britain." 
The four seas become important. Then, " It was the ancient opinion 
" that the species of treason which consists, by 25 Edward III., chapter 2, 
" in adhering to the King's enemies, might be tried, before the statute 
" 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, within the kingdom, by the rules of the 
' ' common law ' ' 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN There is a passage you have left out, and I want 
to see what is the bearing of it " This warrant, therefore, contains suffi- 
" cient certainty to show that the high treason which it charges the prisoner 
" with having committed was, in fact, committed out of the realm of 
" England." Then it goes on as you were reading it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, my lord " It was the ancient opinion that the 
" species of treason which consists, by 25 Edward III., chapter 2, in 
" adhering to the King's enemies, might be tried, before the statute 35 
" Henry VIII., chapter 2, within the kingdom, by the rules of the common 
" law, though the aid and comfort was afforded without the realm; but 
" that every other species of treason committed out of the realm must 
' ' be tried in the place where it was committed, or under the provisions of 
" that Act of Parliament. Perhaps, therefore, in every other species of 
" treason except that first mentioned it would be necessary, both in the 
" special Commission and in the indictment, to pursue the language of the 
" Act, and to aver that it was committed without the realm; but, without 
" giving an opinion upon this point, it is not necessary to use such an 
" averment in the warrant of commitment." The dictum that I have to 
deal with is what I have read. I think when that is considered, that, so 
far from being a dictum in the smallest degree conflicting with my pro- 
position, is really an affirmance of it. It was an ancient opinion that this 
one particular act might be tried within, though the aid and comfort was 
afforded without. That is the proposition that I am labouring on the 
construction of the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Do not you eee it does not say it was the 
ancient opinion that the species of high treason which consists by 25 
Edward III. in adhering to the King's enemies within the realm; it says 
11 adhering to the King's enemies." It does not say within the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, it does not. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It says, " Might be tried before the statute 
" 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, within the kingdom, by the rules of the 
" common law, though the aid and comfort was afforded without the 
"realm." How would you adhere to the King's enemies within the 
realm by doing nothing but giving aid and comfort without the realm? 

Mr. SULLIVAN You would be adhering within the realm by reason of 
the aid and comfort you were affording them outside. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Although you say you were outside the realm? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, although you were within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING But this argument does not put that, which is 
the essence of your case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Dealing with the case, if your lordships will bear with 
me for a moment I think I will be able to point out that my contention 

265 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 



is the true meaning of the case. The emphasis lies in the fact that the 
aid and comfort might be given outside. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING That is common to every case where you say 
that the treason was committed outside the realm ; the aid and comfort is 
assumed to be given outside. If it were given within you could prosecute 
him for many kinds of treason ; you could prosecute him for levying war, 
and there are a number of cases which say that that would be sufficient. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In all the reported oases the adherence, in fact, the aid 
and comfort, has been given or said to be given to an enemy outside the 
realm by a person who never was outside the realm, but who was within. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Does it not occur to you that it would be very 
rare that the person who had comforted the King's enemies outside the realm- 
would be so foolish as to come back unless he came with the intention 
of levying war, and then if he did they very likely caught him and 
prosecuted him for levying war? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Not in every case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN But it is within the realm. What I am pointing 
out is, in fact, you have cases of aid and comfort supplied outside the 
realm, and the person who is prosecuted and convicted is a person who at 
all times was within the realm. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Not always. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Except compassing. 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There is Wharton's case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That we will come to. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING And Lynch's case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I have prefaced all my observations by saying up to 
the year 1903. I am not ignoring Lynch's case. I intend to deal with 
that. Up to 1903, with the exception of Cundell's case, in which we 
have the indictment I am speaking of the reported cases and Wharton't 
oase, which, is explicable on the other grounds, you have a number of cases 
in which the person did not do any act of adherence in the shape of giving 
the enemy aid and comfort within the realm; his aid and comfort to the 
enemy was to be aid and comfort to the enemy who was to be outside 
the realm. The importance of the tracing of that is this. It treats 
compassing as being untriable; it treats adhering as being the only form 
that was triable in respect of matters, aid and comfort being given outside 
the realm. That is significant, and what could be the reason of that 
ancient opinion 1 What would be the significance of an ancient opinion 
that adhering might, but compassing and other acts might not, be triable 
within the realm ? 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN In that case it is a little complicated to find out 
the issue, but is not the fact this, that there was a man committed for 
treason committed abroad out of the realm; he was brought here, and 
had been committed here. It was then sought to get him released under 
the Habeas Corpus Act, because he could not be tried before the first Court 
of Gaol Delivery in London. The answer to that was, " No, the Habeas 
" Corpus Act does not apply, because he could not be tried by the Court 
"of Gaol Delivery, but only in the Court of King's Bench by a special 

266 



Appeal Proceedings . 



Mr. Sullivan 



" Commission under the Act of Henry VIII." That is what the Court held. 
I do not think they intended to decide it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It is only a dictum. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN But they refer to the ancient opinion that, in the 
caae of adhering to the King's enemies part of the adhering to the King's 
enemies was committed within the local jurisdiction, so that you could have 
a local venue. All other treason out of the realm would be tried in the 
King's Bench or under the provisions of the Act. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is my contention of the meaning of that passage, 
and that again proves how it is justified by my previous argument on venue. 

Mr. JUSTICE: ATKIN Again it is only on the question where it could 
be tried. I think it supports you on your point, as far as I am concerned, 
that you could not try a treason out of the realm at common law because 
of the difficulty as to local venue. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is what I use it for. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN It leaves open the question that there was an 
offence, if only you could find a way of trying it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. I venture to say there was no other offence 
known to the law that could be investigated. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING This is a judgment of the Court, and it says 
the ancient opinion was that the case of adhering by giving aid and 
comfort outside the realm was an exception to the other rule. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, and I was about to point out, but my lord antici- 
pated me, the reason of that exception. It got over the ancient rigidity 
of the primary law of venue. The law developed that where only part of 
the transaction had taken place in a venue, that gave you sufficient seisin 
I quoted Viner on that to investigate the whole transaction. My con- 
struction of the statute of Edward III. is entirely consistent with this, pro- 
vided the adherent was within the realm, although his adherence was both 
within and without the realm, he within being adherent, his acts without 
being acts of aid and comfort. In that case they had got over the diffi- 
culty of venue by having what you might call a partial venue within the 
realm, and that gave jurisdiction. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING But the Court here in stating what was the 
ancient opinion do not make use of your first premises ; they do say that it 
was only the man who, being within the realm, had been adhering to the 
King's enemies without the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN They do not say that in plain terms, but I think the 
emphasis of the aid and comfort being rendered without rather implies 
that ; that, at all events, is my submission, and that, of course, would 
be intelligible as showing that the one particular species of treason, if 
you read it in the way I ask you to, would be an exception to the general 
rule that none of these acts was triable at co'mmon law if committed 
outside the realm; because if the man was within the realm you had the 
partial venue which the Court seized upon as giving a jurisdiction to investi- 
gate the whole transaction, though portion was outside the realm. It was 
in that way that commercial law developed, and the allegation that some- 
thing was to be done within the jurisdiction enabled Courts to try trans- 
actions partly to be done within the jurisdiction of the Court and partly on 
the other side of the world. 

267 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE How can you explain their omitting that 
essential part of the proposition? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I do not think they ha.ve. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE There is not a word about hia being 
within the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I submit that that is implied by the emphasis of the 
fact that he could be tried by the rules of the common law, though the 
aid and comfort was offered without the realm. The statute, I submit, 
creates the offence with which we are charged if it had been committed 
within the realm, namely, the offence of being adherent to the King's 
enemies. That is what I am charged with. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Apart from an overt act, that is no 
offence at all. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The overt act is only evidence. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE You cannot charge a man with treason 
merely for what he thinks. 

Mr. SULLIVAN You had to have an overt act to prove your charge 
against him, and the peculiarity of adhering isi that the Court is enabled 
to investigate the circumstances of an overt act that did not take place 
within the jurisdiction. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Your argument goes upon the footing 
that it is- treason without any overt act. You say he is guilty of treason 
within the realm, although he performed no overt act at all anywhere? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No, I have not stated that; he is guilty of treason of 
adhering to the King's enemies within the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE That is not a treason in itself? 

Mr. SULLIVAN If you prove it, it is. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Is it? There is no authority for that 
that I know of. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The mere mental attitude of a man can never be 
treason. The adherence must be adherence manifesting itself by an overt 
act somewhere, but if it manifests itself by an overt act anywhere, 
that species of adherence, he being within the realm, is triable 
where you have the venue of the partially accomplished offence, 
although the complete accomplishment of the offence took place outside 
the realm. That, at all events, is my submission as to the meaning 
of that dictum, for it is only a dictum, in The King v. Platt, and I can 
only admit it for the consideration of the Court in the manner that I have 
presented it. 

Now, my lords, the next case I have to deal with is Lynch' s case. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Before you leave Plait's case, how do you deal 
with this passage on page 168, " This warrant therefore contains suffi- 
" cient certainty to show that the high treason which it charges the 
" prisoner with having committed was, in fact, committed out of the realm 
"of England"? Is it not your argument that high treason cannot be 
committed out of the realm of England? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Oh, no, my lord, never. If I have conveyed that to 
the Court, I have entirely failed to convey my proper meaning. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT That is what this indictment charges in the present 
case; it charges him with adhering to the King's enemies outside the 
268 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



realm, " elsewhere than in the King's realm." I have understood jour 
argument to be that that is an offence which does not exist. 

Mr. SULLIVAN In the present case, yes ; what is charged is, adhering 
and doing an act completely outside the realm and the King's dominions. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING You say, if I understand you, it is essential that 
the man to be charged should be within the realm when the act of treason 
is committed outside it. That is the act of adherence. You say the 
adherence is the reason, but the person who adheres must be within the 
realm, and must adhere by aiding and comforting an enemy outside it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Not necessarily outside, but the enemy may be outside. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Either within or without? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, either within or without. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Then you say the treason is committed in 
England by an acl of aid and comfort given outside England. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING And that the traitor, therefore, is always within 
the kingdom, and because of that the local venue applies to what he did 
and you can try him. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, that was my argument. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING And that is the whole of it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is the gist of my argument which I submit to the 
Court. That is the argument I present. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT In what they say was the ancient opinion, your 
argument must be that the ancient opinion was wrong. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I had meant to convey that that ancient opinion was 
right on my construction of the statute. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT But your argument involves this, that what they 
recite as the ancient opinion was, in fact, wrong. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Oh, no, my lord, I have again misconveyed myself, 
and I am exceedingly sorry. It is a lack of proper expression. The 
ancient opinion was right, if I am right in my construction of the statute 
that the ancient opinion showed adherence was peculiar in this, that the 
man adherent, being within the jurisdiction, he could be tried at common 
law, although you never could prove completion of his crime under the 
old law of venue where the completion of his crime was, in fact, giving aid 
and comfort outside the realm. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT How do you explain that that i not stated in the 
ancient opinion? They do not even say adhering to the King's enemy 
within the realm, which implies that adhering to the King's enemy need 
not be in the realm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I would, I fear, only be repeating myself if I tried 
to put it again. 

This matter, as we know, arose in The King v. Lynch, and was there 
debated, argued, and pronounced upon by a Court after argument, so far 
as I know, for the first time. It is the first judicial decision on the 
construction of the statute, and is, of course, an authority. In the 
report in 1903, 1 King's Bench, you will find no assistance on this point 
that we are now discussing. An argument in The King v. Lynch is 
reported in 1903, 1 King's Bench, at page 444, but that is an argument 
entirely upon the question of naturalisation and naturalisation 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

during war. In the shorthand notes of The King v. Lynch will be 
found the argument upon the branch of the case with which I have been 
occupying your lordships' attention at such length, but there is no judg- 
ment upon it ; that is to say, there is no considered judgment upon it and 
no pronounced judgment upon it. The question is allowed to proceed to 
the jury notwithstanding the objection made that the offence charged was 
adherence without the realm. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alver stone, 
expressly refersi in two different places to The King v. Vaughan as being 
a complete authority against the contention that I am advancing here ; in 
fact, The King v. Vaughan appears to have been treated by the Lord 
Chief Justice as being a matter, at all events in a trial at bar, which 
would close discussion. I propose to examine The King v Vaughan, and 
refer your lordships to it. I convinced the Court at the trial at bar, 
and they assented to the proposition, that The King v. Vaughan certainly 
wa9 not an authority on this point. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Serjeant Sullivan, you say you convinced the 
Court at the trial that The King v. Vaughan was not an authority on this 
point? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That The King v. Vaughan was not an authority 
against me. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING And notwithstanding that, they ruled against 
you upon this point, although they put The King v. Vaughan aside. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is so. 

Mr .JUSTICE DARLING What you are appealing from is their judgment, 
and that did not go upon the authority of The King v. Vaughan. Why 
need you trouble about The King v. Vaughan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Because The King v. Lynch, which is a matter to be 
considered, is based on The King v. Vaughan. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The Court before whom the appellant was tried 
thought that The King v. Lynch was rightly decided, although they did 
not hold up the authority of The King v. Vaughan ; why need you trouble 
with The King v. Vaughan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Well, my lord, if I am right in my contention that The 
King v. Lynch was really based on The King v. Vaughan, and on another 
matter, namely, the statute of George II., which I respectfully submit is 
no authority against me, then I submit that would get rid of The King v. 
Lynch as an authority against me, if I show it is based on considerations 
that are not good in law. The King v. Lynch is there as an authority 
against me. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It may be, but not upon the ground that The 
King v. Vaughan is an authority. At all events, the Court before whom 
the appellant was tried said, as I understand we will take it to be so 
" We do not follow The King v. Vaughan, but we think, for all that, 
" that The King v. Lynch was rightly decided." 

Mr. SULLIVAN What I propose to show is that since The King v. 
Lynch is there as an authority against me it is based on a wrong decision. 
If The King v. Lynch is treated as neutral, I, of course, would not be 
justified in taking up the time of the Court. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Not neutral, an authority against you, and 
declared by the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges, Mr. Justice 
270 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Avory and Mr. Justice Horridge, to be an authority against you, but not 
on the ground that The King v. Vaughan was an authority against you. 
Why should you trouble with The King v. Vaughan? 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN What you want to do is to get rid of the authority 
of The King v. Lynch by saying that it was founded upon a misapprehen- 
sion of a particular case. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN If The King v. Lynch stands as an authority we 
are bound by it, and everybody is bound by it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN That is why I was anxious to show that the decision 
of The King v. Lynch should not operate against me because it was on a 
false basis. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING In order that we may not argue what is not 
necessary to argue, on what ground did the Court before whom the 
appellant was- tried say that The King v. Lynch was good law? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The judgment of Mr. Justice Avory is on 
page 130; after hearing the arguments about The King v. Vaughan, the 
learned judge gives his conclusion. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING " First of all, it is not right to say that the 
" point was not, in fact, decided in The King v. Lynch " ; is that the 



The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, that is where it begins. 
Mr. SULLIVAN At page 128 the Lord Chief Justice says, "Then 
' at last we come to the decision of The King v. Lynch, decided in 
' 1903. There the same argument was advanced by the defence that has 
' been put forward before us, and it was persisted in and elaborately 
' argued. The Court there came to the conclusion that the defendant's 
' contention was wrong, and, although it gave no judgment, the then 
" Lord Chief Justice proceeded to sum up, and directed the jury as if it 
" was an offence. Lynch was convicted by the jury, and if the argument 
" of the defence is right in this case, Lynch never should have been con- 
" victed, and the Court ought to have ruled that no offence had been 
' ' disclosed either by the evidence or in the indictment. The Court did 
" not so rule, but on the contrary directed the jury upon the assumption 
1 ( that the offence was disclosed if the jury took a ' particular view of the 
" facts. Now that is a current authority which is strong." 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Mr. Justice AvoryV judgment ia at page 
130. 

Mr. SULLIVAN " First of all, it is not right to say that the point was 
" not, in fact, decided in The King v. Lynch. While it is true that no 
" formal judgment was 1 pronounced on the objection, it will be found by 
" reference to the report of the case in 19 Times Law Reports that the 
" Lord Chief Justice stopped the Attorney- General in his reply to the 
" argument, and said that they were satisfied on the point, and unless he 
" wanted to cite any further authorities they did not wish to hear him 
" further. That was, in fact, a decision that the point taken was a bad 
" one. But, further and beyond the fact to which allusion ha been 
" made, that the prisoner in that case could not have been convicted unless 
" the point was decided against him, it will also be found in the same 

271 



Sir Roger Casement. 



Mr. Sullivan 



report of the summing of the learned Lord Chief Justice that he, 
towards the close of his summing up, used these words. He reminded 
the jury ' that the charge against the prisoner was that of aiding the 
1 King's enemies; and he had already told them that the facts which 
1 had been laid before them amounted to aiding the King's enemies, and 
' that wherever it was done this was an offence in respect of which, if 
' proved, the prisoner ought to be found guilty upon the indictment.' 
So that there was a.n express direction in terms in that ease to the jury 
that wherever the acts were done of adherence to the King's enemies that 
was an offence within the meaning of the statute." It is solely for the 
purpose of disposing of the authority against me that I propose to show to 
your lordships that the Lord Chief Justice, whose decision in that case 
is alluded to by two of the judges at the trial at bar in the present case, 
treated it as having actually decided the point very many years ago, a case 
which on investigation proves to be irrelevant to the matter that the 
Lord Chief Justice was called upon to decide, and if it is 
open to me to show that the decision of The King v. Lynch, relied upon in 
the present case by the Court below, was, in fact, based upon founda- 
tions which were insecure, it is the only way I know, my lord, of removing 
a case which appears to be decided precisely in point against me; the 
only way I know in advocacy is to take the principles upon which a case has 
been decided, if one has to fly in the face of it and state that it was 
wrong. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Where does the Lord Chief Justice in this trial 
deal with the case of The King v. Vaughan? 

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL At page 83 of the second day. 
Mr. SULLIVAN He also dealt with it on the third .day when my 
colleague was addressing the Court. He said that they had already 
expressed a.n opinion. On page 122 of the third day there isi the par- 
ticular passage I have in mind, but the learned Attorney-General refers 
to page 83. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING I have page 83, where the Lord Chief Justice 
says, " You need not labour that point, at any rate, as we are at present 
" advised that The King v. Vaughan does not bind us. Mr. Sullivan 
" Very well, my lord. Now, if The King v. Vaughan does not deal with 
" the matter, the next argument of the Attorney-General in The King v. 
" Lynch was the statute of 18 George II. That is set out in extenso 
" in the shorthand 'notes, if I may quote from them, at page 112. The 
<( King v. Vaughan, the Attorney-General said, was the chief authority 
' ' upon which he relied, and I think he puts it forward as being a matter of 
" considerable importance." 

Mr. SULLIVAN Then there is the passage at page 122 on the third day. 
Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE What was the ground upon which the 
Lord Chief Justice thought that The King v. Vaughan was wrong; what 
was the ground upon which he laid it aside? 

Mr. SULLIVAN That was what I was about to open to your lordship. 
Mr. JUSTICE BRAT What he intended to say was that you need not 
trouble about The King v. Vaughan being an authority against you. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING He says that at page 122 in terms. 
272 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



Mr. SULLIVAN " We have already expressed our view upon that. 
" You are quite justified in referring to it, and there has been no argu- 
" ment to the contrary. The King v. Vaughan is no authority against 
" you." If The King v. Vaughan is no authority against me I intended 
to submit that The King v. Lynch, which treats The King v. Vaughan as 
being so exactly in point, is no more authority against me than The King 
v. Vaughan. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Where did Lord Alverstone, in that case, say he 
treated The King v. Vaughan as conclusive? 

Mr. SULLIVAN At page 109 of the shorthand report of The King v. 
Lynch he saysi it in two different places. Interrupting the argument of 
Mr. Justice Avory, as he now is, the Lord Chief Justice says, " I have 
" no doubt you have considered it, but it seems to me that The King v. 
" Vaughan is a direct authority. The charge against the prisoner is 
" left to the jury upon the count only of adhering to the King's enemies, 
" that being done upon the high seas, and that point is then attempted to 
" be taken that he was not a British subject at all. The Attorney- 
" General There is no count for compassing. My learned friend Mr. 
" Avory said there was. The Lord Chief Justice It seems to me The 
" King v. Vaughan is a direct authority against you; it is in 13 State 
" Trials, and the passage is at page 525 and page 526. I have no doubt 
" you have looked at this most carefully. There are passages in 
" Hale and others that are against this contention. They may be relics 
" of a barbaric age, but you have to deal with them." 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT Is that the only passage upon which you found 
the argument that The King v. Lynch was decided solely upon The King 
v. Vaughan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN I should not have said " solely," if I did say so. In 
The King v. Lynch the Lord Chief Justice treats The King v. Vaughan as 
being directly in point. He refers to it twice. There is no judgment 
that we can read in The King v. Lynch, because there is no judgment 
delivered on this part of the argument ; it is therefore on the interlocutory 
observations of the Lord Chief Justice that one is compelled to found it. 

Mr. JUSTICE BRAT The Lord Chief Justice's suggestion that The King 
v. Vaughan was a direct authority was not accepted by Mr. Justice Avory. 
It does not follow that The King v. Lynch proceeded solely on The King v. 
Vaughan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Not solely. There was a second argument addressed 
by the Attorney-General, to which also I desire to direct attention, on the 
statute of George II. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING It comes to this, does it not, that if The King 
v. Vaughan was an indictment framed upon the statute of 25 Edward III., 
then it is an authoritly, and Mr. Avory, as he then was, argued that the 
indictment was not framed upon the statute of Edward III., and that, 
therefore, was no authority? He puts it on page 110 of his argument 
' The indictment alleges that there was a ship sent out by the French 
" King to wage war upon the high seas within the jurisdiction of the 
" Admiralty, and that being within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, 
" about 14 leagues off Deal, did then aid, help, and assist the enemies of 
" our Lord the King in the ship of war called the ' Loyal Glencarty.' 
T 273 



Sir Roger Casement, 



Mr. Sullivan 



' There is no allegation; that would have been a bad indictment, my 
' lord, under the clause of the statute, because there is no allegation 
' that he was adhering to the King's enemies, which is the gist* of this." 
Then the Lord Chief Justice says, " Aid, help, and assist the enemy of our 
"' said King." Then Mr. Avory says, " That may have been a form of 
' treason recognised at common law apart from the statute. That is 
' why I said that this case was not, or did not appear, to have been a 
' case under this statute. The indictment does not appear to be framed 
' under the statute as a charge of adhering to the King's enemies, but 
' rather as a common law charge of treason committed upon the high 
' seas. That is what I thought of Vaughan, and I desire only to repeat 
' it. That does not appear to be an indictment framed under this clause 
' of the statute. It may be, and then I am not disputing it as an 
' authority that that might at common law have constituted a treason. 
" That is not the question here, of course." That ie the whole objection. 

Mr. SULLIVAN The next observation of the Lord Chief Justice is, 
" Mr. Attorney, are there any authorities you wish to call our attention 
to?" 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING On what ground do you say Lord Reading pro- 
ceeded in saying that The King v. Vaughan* was not an authority? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Because I showed him on the examination of TJie King 
v. Vaughan that The King v. Vaughan was as plainly as could be an 
act of adhering to the King's enemies within the realm. I proved it. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The indictment did not use the word 
"adhering." 

Mr. SULLIVAN Pardon me, my lord, it did. There was a discussion 
upon the first count of the indictment. I will open it to your lordships. 
The second count of the indictment was in the clearest way ; it begins that 
it was within the realm, and I showed that the place alleged was within 
the realm of England. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Did the indictment allege it? 
Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, the second count ; and even against the peace. 
Mr. JUSTICE DARLING How many counts were there? 
Mr. SULLIVAN Two. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The second count says, " And the said jurors 
" of our said Lord the King upon their said oaths farther represent," and 
so on. 

Mr. SULLIVAN To begin with, before we get to the counts of the 
indictment, will your lordship look at the Court? If you look at the 
Court you get an admiral and the three or four substantial persons, not 
under 35 Henry VIII., but under 28 Henry VIII. ; that is the jurisdiction 
of the Admiralty. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN The second count is levying war. 
Mr. SULLIVAN " As a false traitor," and so forth. The first thing 
is " further resigning, practising, and with his whole strength intending 
' the common peace and tranquillity of this kingdom of England to 
1 disturb ; and a war and rebellion against the said King upon the high 
' seas, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, to move, stir 
' up, and procure, and the said Lord the King, from the title, honour, 
' royal name, and imperial crown of his kingdom of England, and 
274 



Appeal Proceedings. 

Mr. Sullivan 

"dominions upon the high seas, to depose and deprive; and miserable 
" slaughter of the subjects of the said Lord the King, of this kingdom 
" of England, upon the high seas, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, to 
" cause and procure; on the said 8th day of July, in the said 7th 
" year of the King, upon the high seas, about 14 leagues from Deal, and 
11 within the dominion of the crown of England." There is no doubt that 
it was within the dominions of the realm of England. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Several persons would have been hanged a hundred 
years previously for doubting this was within the realm " And within the 
' ' jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England aforesaid, falsely, maliciously, 
" devilishly, and treacherously, by force and arms with divers other false 
"rebels and traitors (to the jurors unknown), war against our said now 
" Lord the King, prepared, prompted, levied, and waged. And that the 
"said Thomas Vaughan in performance of his said war and rebellion, 
" then and there, by force and arms, maliciously, wickedly, and openly 
" assembled " 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING That is quite distinct; it was within the juris- 
diction of the Admiralty, that was on the high seas; that is within the 
jurisdiction of the Admiralty. We all know who ruled the waves in those 
days, and that is the reason why it was within the dominions. 

Mr. SULLIVAN There are two points to be noted. First, it was 
within the realm of England ; that was absolutely certain in those days. I 
could keep on quoting authorities that the narrow seas were part of the 
realm of England, and the ships thereon were the castles of the King 
within his realm. There is no doubt it was within the realm of England ; 
and, secondly, it is not tried as a foreign treason, and although Lord 
Alver&tone appears to have thought it was under 35 Henry VIII., as 
committed out of the realm, it is tried under 28 Henry VIII. You 
observe, although it is within the realm, it is tried under 28 Henry VIII. 
Why? It is not in the body of a county, and for want of being within 
the body of a county, although it is within the realm, it is accordingly 
tried, not under 35 Henry VIII. in the Court of King's Bench, but under 
28 Henry VIII. by the special Commission consisting, as your lordships see, 
of the admiral and of the three or four substantial persons, the judges. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Is the ground that Lord Alverstone misunder- 
stood the case and that Lord Reading did not? Lord Reading says that 
The King v. Lynch is good law against you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN And therefore I want to show that, so far as any judg- 
ment was pronounced in The King v. Lynch, it was a judgment arrived at 
solely, or if not solely, mainly on The King v. Vaughan. Would your 
lordship turn to The King v. Lynch, just a few lines below where we 
stopped reading, where the Lord Chief Justice says, " Mr. Attorney, are 
"there any authorities you wish to call our attention tof " The 
Attorney-General says, " There is a great mass of authority." Then the 
Lord Chief Justice says, " I know, but are there any you wish to call our 
" attention to? I have already expressed my opinion, but if there are 
" authorities you think we ought to know of we will hear them." That 
is as much of a judgment as there is pronounced in the matter. The 
Attorney-General then goes on with authorities, and at page 115, Sir 

275 



Sir Roger Casement. 

Mr. Sullivan 

John Parrot's case is approved by the Lord Chief Justice during the 
argument as a distinct authority again. I do not think it would be so 
treated now. You do not find any further judgment, and accordingly, 
before he heard the Attorney-General, the Lord Chief Justice had already 
announced that the mind of the Court was quite satisfied on the authority, 
so far as you can see, of The King v. Vaughan. There is no considered 
judgment; the matter evaporates and goes to the jury. There are the 
expressions of opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. Parrot's case I do not 
think will help us ; we are all familiar with the trial of Parrot ; that is 
one of the great historical trials, but it will not help us in this respect. 
The Lord Chief Justice had already, before his attention was called to 
anything else, expressed his opinion that The King v. Vaughan was a 
clear authority ; if the Attorney-General wished to add anything to it, well 
and good, but he was quite convinced, and he expressed his opinion on The 
King v. Vaughan. Am I not at least entitled to say, if The King v. 
Vaughan was in fact of no authority on the matter, that the decision of 
The King v. Lynch is very seriously impaired? I do not know of any 
other passages of the Lord Chief Justice in The King v. Lynch to amend 
that judgment. At page 115 it says, " And so it was resolved in Sir 
" John Parrot's case." The Lord Chief Justice says, " Distinct authority 
"again." Then there is a reference to Hale, and then the Attorney- 
General says that the objection is a mere matter of form, and that his 
learned friend is really bringing forward a matter already raised on the 
indictment ; and it really was a matter of form. The counsel for the 
prisoner then said, " I understand we still have the opportunity of moving 
" this again in arrest of judgment." Then the Lord Chief Justice says, 
' { You first ask us to construe the statute, and then you say if the statute 
" is rightly construed there is no evidence." Then the Lord Chief Justice 
says, " That only goes to the form, not the substance." Then Mr. 
Avory says, " I do not want to reply to this. I see what your lordship's 
" view is, and we have an opportunity at a later stage of discussing those 
"matters." Then the Lord Chief Justice says, "Are you calling evi- 
"dence?" Then counsel for the prisoner says, "Yes. I propose to 
"call evidence " and so the case goes on. 

So far as there is any ruling upon the point which I am arguing 
before your lordship, if The King v. Lynch is said to be a decision against 
me, I am anxious to criticise the grounds of The King v. Lynch, and the 
matter which most influenced the Court in The King v. Lynch, and had 
decided the judgment of the Court before any argument was addressed on 
behalf of the Crown, as the President of the Court had stated. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING The difficulty about it is that if you get rid of 
The King v. Vaughan, the Court in The King v. Lynch did not rely only 
on The King v. Vaughan. There are specially mentioned all these 
authorities with which you dealt yesterday Coke, Hale, Hawkins, and 
all of them. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I wish to* call attention to the fact that these authori- 
ties are cited after the Lord Chief Justice has informed the Attorney- 
General that he has already expressed his opinion on the case on the 
authority of The King v. Vaughan. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Suppose they did rely upon twenty authorities 
276 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



and one of them was a bad one and the other nineteen were good, the 
decision is a good one for all that. You can take a little poison without 
it killing you if the rest of the food is wholesome. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Without trying it, I will assent to that. I should 
suggest the converse happened. The Court said it was quite satisfied 
with the poison, but if they wished to add any further argument they 
might go on and cite anything else they thought might be drawn to the 
attention of the Court. The moment the Attorney-General rises he is 
informed that no argument is needed on his part to convince the Court, 
because the Court has already expressed an opinion, but they will listen 
to anything further he wishes to say, they having already made up their 
minds he has no case to meet. Up to that point the Court informs the 
Crown they have no case to meet. The only authority against the prisoner 
in the opinion of the Court, so far as the expression of the Court goes, is 
The King v. Vaughan, which is no authority at all. I submit you are 
not bound here by the trial at bar of The King v. Lynch, and in view of 
that history of the development of The King v. Lynch it certainly doee 
not stand as a high authority, if the Court were satisfied that there was 
no case to be met by the (Sown, and were satisfied on what the Court 
said was a conclusive authority in favour of the Crown, which upon 
investigation is shown to have been no authority at all. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING There were two other judges present besides 
Lord Alverstone, Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Channell, both very 
learned judges, who had made a considerable study of all these other 
authorities. Their knowledge of the law of treason was not limited to 
The King v. Vaughan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Certainly. All that I wish to eay with regard to The 
King v. Lynch in view of its acceptance of The King v. Vaughan is that 
The King v. Lynch, if it purports to follow the other authorities which 
I dealt with yesterday, if the authorities I dealt with yesterday, which 
I take it would be present to the minds of the Court, are good, they are- 
good, but if they are bad, The King v. Lynch would be bad on the ground 
that these were bad and should be overruled. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN All I wish to get rid of with regard to The King v. 
Lynch is that it should be cited as something in the nature of an addi- 
tional considered authority after argument, when I point out that before 
there is any real argument of the case at all the Court makes up its mind, 
perhaps from their antecedent following of Coke, Hale, and Hawkins, 
but expressing itself to be satisfied there is an authority which would be 
binding on the Court because of a previous trial at bar which was con- 
clusively in point. I have no wish to occupy the time of the Court any 
further upon this point. It does come back to this, that if I was right 
in my argument yesterday, The King v. Lynch would be wrongly decided 
if it followed Vaughan. If your lordships are satisfied that I need not 
open Vaughan, I can leave that. Whether it followed Vaughan, which, 
I submit, is a bad authority, or whether it followed the authority of the 
text-books, if those books- are to be noticed, I submit it would fall in every 
event, and I think I need not further occupy the time of the Court with 
regard to the matter. 

277 



Sir Roger Casement, 



[p. Sullivan 



My lords, the only other case is The King T. CundelL I think I 
mentioned it yesterday, and it will be present to your lordships' mind. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Ye. 

Mr. SULLIVAN I will not turn back to that. 

There are, my lords, a few matters that I may have omitted. We 
were dealing with the case of Owen Glyndwr > the record of which was 
sent up. There is a peculiar history with regard to that, because it 
appear that Glyndwr was proceeded against, and that subsequently it 
was found necessary to confirm the proceedings against Owen Glyndwr 
by statute, 9 Henry VI., chapter 3 "The proceedings against Owen 
" Glyndwr attainted of high treason ehall stand/' and so forth, " but 
" shall not prejudice his heirs." The important matter there is that it 
does not prejudice his heirs, for there you see at once the distinction between 
the confirmance of common law treason and conviction following in a 
common law Court and a conviction of treason at civil law where there 
was no attaint of blood. So you see obviously Owen Glyndwr's treason 
would be within the King's dominions but without the realm, and when 
proceedings against him are confirmed by Act of Parliament, they are 
confirmed to stand good as a conviction at civil law, and not at common 
law, which confirms the argument that I addressed to your lordships this 
morning. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE Is there any distinction drawn between 
civil law and the statute? 

Mr. SULLIVAN No. 

Mr. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE It was not uncommon for such statutes 
as that to be passed to save the heirs from forfeiture. There are lots of 
precedents for that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It might be that. On the other hand, as we know, 
these proceedings tried before the admiral, although he had jurisdiction 
to try for high treason, and did convict of high treason in his trial at 
civil law, involved no attaint of blood. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Glyndwr's rebellion was against Henry IT., 
was it not, and this is a statute of 9 Henry VI . ? 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING Who were Owen Glyndwr 'is heirs at that time? 

Mr. SULLIVAN At any rate, they had sufficient influence with Parlia- 
ment 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING They were good friends of Henry VI., you may 
depend. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING I should not wonder in the least if they were 
very good relations of Henry VII. You will get to the house of Tudor 
directly. 

Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. The House of Tudor had a knack of drawing 
unto itself diverging elements in earlier years. 

My lords, may I now shortly sum up what I have occupied your 
lordships' time over? First, I submit that dealing within the realm, and 
dealing with the common law, which is the common law of the realm, 
developing out of the county administration and the administration of the 
bodies of counties, there could not have been and there is no existence 
278 



Appeal Proceedings. 



Mr. Sullivan 



of something that is alleged to be a crime whose existence cannot be 
inquired into or determined by a legal tribunal. If no legal tribunal can 
inform itself whether the state of affairs exists, I submit such a state 
of affairs cannot be said to be a crime when their existence cannot become 
known to a legal tribunal that for want of venue the common law could 
never inform itself of a matter which had arisen outside of the body of 
the county that the statute of Edward III., although it would be law in all 
the King's dominions as far as we are dealing with it, its administration 
by the common law would depend on the powers of the common law to 
inform itself as to the facts alleged against supposed offenders, and that 
therefore the statute when dealing with matters within the realm should 
not be construed as to intend the creation of an offence on a state of affairs 
which again could not be tried and that in the construction of the statute 
it must be borne in mind that the statute would fall to the ground so far 
as it is incapable of working itself out by the process and procedure of 
the common law. I submit on the plain reading of the statute, if we 
read it to-day for the first time, if you gave it to a man who knew 
nothing about the complications connected with it, it would 
convey clearly to his mind that the two matters alleged in the 
sitatute would only have the criminal element of treachery accord- 
ing to the statute if they were committed within the realm; 
and one of them had this peculiarity, that it might be proved to be com- 
mitted within the realm, although the completion of the offence might 
have taken place outside the realm if the offender was within all the time. 
That was a peculiarity which distinguished it from the other matters 
alleged in the statute. I submit that any passing of the statute to try 
and make it fit with the opinion of text-writers would be outside the 
jurisdiction of the Court ; that the statute should be expounded by each 
member of the Court for himself, and that the duty is to peruse the statute 
and to form an opinion as to what the statute means, and not to try and 
see if the statute can be reconciled or read in accordance with the opinion 
of any text-writer, no matter how eminent. I would call the attention 
of the Court to the fact that as far as I know again I speak subject to 
correction you do not find any effort to put in operation with regard 
to outside matters, these allegations of treason until subsequently to 
26 Henry VIII., that in all these years, including the time when there 
were pretenders in France leading against the Kings of England, you do not 
find precedent apart from Cundell's case of any proceeding in the 
nature of adhering where the adherent is, and all the acts and circumstances 
take place, entirely without the jurisdiction, in all these hundreds of 
years. An examination of the cases shows that until The King v. Lynch 
the matter is never debated and submitted to the judgment of His Majesty